Re: [mpisgmedia] IT Park case / other updates / MPISG meeting

Dear Gita,

Like all your numerous supporters, I am slightly
disappointed to learn what transpired during hearings
of 23rd May 2005.

May I humbly suggest that your hand be strengthened by
intervenors and that issues of violation of
Fundamental Right to Info/Speech :-) be emphasised in
addition to the masterful plannerly issues in the

BTW, when/how are we all synergising on responding to
MPD-2021 draft?


--- Gita Dewan Verma <[email protected]> wrote:

> In WP 6500/2005 (Gita Dewan Verma v/s DMRC & Ors, in
> the matter of constructions at Shastri Park on the
> riverbed, including commercial IT Park that was
> inaugurated on 02/04/05 by Chief Minister Ms Sheila
> Dikshit with area MP Mr Sandeep Dikshit, DMRC MD Mr
> E
> Sreedharan and DMRC Chairman Mr Anil Baijal, also
> Secretary MoUD), filed on 07/04/05 High Court had
> issued notice to Respondents on 13/04/05 to file
> replies in two weeks, which they did not do.
> On second hearing on 23/05/05 Mr Mukul Rohtagi,
> appearing for DMRC, led the defence claiming that
> nothing survived in the petition -- on basis of a
> Gazette Notification of land use change for IT Park,
> dated 25/04/05 (ie, within the two-weeks in which
> they
> had to file replies), which Mr Sapra, appearing for
> DDA, brought to court just before the matter was
> called.
> Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr KG Gopalkrishnan,
> pointed out that far from making the petition
> infructuous, the Notification only proved its
> contention of post-facto regularisation of illegal
> construction and frivolousness about Public Notice
> safeguard. It was also pointed out that permissions
> prior to 25/04/05 would all be illegal.
> Respondents have been directed to file
> counter-affidavits including all their permissions,
> Petitioner to file rejoinder in a week thereafter
> and
> the matter is listed for 29/08/05. The court granted
> neither a stay on further construction at Shastri
> Park
> nor the dismissal that Respondents were obviously
> pitching for (Mr Rohtagi would hardly have bothered
> to
> come by just for an adjournment).
> Petition w/o annexures is at:
> The immediate reaction was of bafflement and
> disappointment. But come to think of it, all did as
> well as could be expected in petition by one planner
> to single judge against wildly celebrated
> illegality.
> Gopal stood our ground firmly and politely. I added
> my
> two-bits nearly likewise. Even Mr Rohtagi did not
> press hard for dismissal after the opening remark
> about nothing surviving in my petition and only made
> self-assured claims of impossible permissions and
> routine remarks about public interest served by the
> project and riverbed not being water-body but dry
> land. Mr Sapra, after trying some land-acquisition
> drivel that interested none, just spoke of the
> notifications (they had also one of November 2004
> for
> Public Notice of December 2002 for
> property-development at metro stations on
> Shahdra-TisHazari corridor and 52 hectares of
> riverbed
> for Shastri Park depot and more at Khyber Pass).
> and MoUD counsel said nothing. Lordship said
> Respondents must reply to my contentions.
> The Gazette Notification said 150 objections were
> received and Central Government, after carefully
> considering all aspects of the matter, decided to
> modify the Plan. After Central Government
> after-carefully-considering-all-aspects has decided
> and gazetted that it is all-right,
> gentlemen-in-black
> can hardly make it reply to my contention that it is
> all wrong ? wrong for the state to break the
> law, wrong for state bosses to celebrate their
> wrong-doing, wrong to tolerate or cheer their
> celebration, wrong to suffer the anomie in which
> unambiguously admitted illegal construction of this
> commercial icon on riverbed coincided with unlawful
> closure of industries and unlawful riverbank
> evictions
> that drove children to die.
> This Central Government will also
> carefully-consider-all-aspects of responses to
> Public
> Notice for DMP-2021. Maybe we should to ask what
> means
> careful-consideration-of-all-aspects or get really
> out-of-the-box and seek clemency for
> Sahara-scamsters,
> being hounded for lesser albeit yellower post-facto
> fix.
> --------
> Some are planning an MPISG meeting for synergising
> on
> DMP2021 Public Notice, tentatively on 29/05/05
> around
> 4 PM at Rangpuri Pahari. Those inclined to join /
> organise are requested to say so on this list.
> ---------
> Update on other matters in court, etc
> ---------
> The matter of the other anomie-icon, MCD-Manushi
> pilot-project model-market, has been progressing. As
> intervener MPISG was permitted to make submissions
> on
> 17/05/05 and we picked holes in MCD-Manushi claims
> of
> conformity with Master Plan (they did!), conformity
> with National Policy, wide approvals and piloting of
> some larger goodness. Our submissions are posted at:
> Our letter to MCD Asst Commissioner asking for
> confirmation of legality and propriety of a Public
> Notice he issued for policy implementation on
> 22/05/05
> is posted at:
> Related to all this informalization with NGO
> mediated
> micro-credit and what not, is my response to
> Standing
> Committee press notice published on 16/05/05 to
> invite
> opinion / views on SJSRY, posted at:
> ---------
> In the free-seats mess, on 16/05/05 respondents had
> not filed counter-affidavits and as the matter was
> being adjourned counsel for the Action Committee of
> Unaided Schools asked about the consideration of
> their
> scheme as per order of 5/05/05 and counsel for Delhi
> Government said government had rejected it and
> Lordship asked why. I sought and got permission to
> submit that Lordship herself had pointed out that
> their scheme required statute amendment, while our
> intervention had as annex a scheme compliant with
> both
> Delhi School Education Act and Delhi Development Act
> and we had written to LG, as administrator of both
> Acts, for its consideration pursuant to the last
> order
> of the Court and would be obliged if Lordship also
> asked the parties to consider our scheme. I was
> directed to give a copy to the counsel who were most
> helpful and have copies for their clients to
> consider.
> Our letter of 10/05/05 to LG with reference to which
> I
> made the request is at:
> The scheme / annex is the note for the meeting with
> schools on 08/02/05, at:
> post about hearing on 05/05/05 is at:
> -------
> Arjun Camp (Sahara) matters were listed on 20/05/05.
> News reports of 19/05/05 about the Sahara-scam
> accused
> had raised hopes, but the matters did not reach. DDA
> had not filed summary of submissions ordered in
> January and its counsels were not present. We
> mentioned urgency in view of DMP2021 Public Notice
> and
> managed only listing on 05/07/07 (two days before
> end
> of Public Notice). Things are quiet on Pushta
> despite
> the revived clearance order (about which people
> there
> wrote to suggest IT-Park first). Meanwhile the
> Mumbai
> Model seems on course, with political advice and
> support to citizens in Kalkaji slums for approaching
> the courts to demand it. Manjit Singh, former
> Commissioner Slums, who has been sharing dais in VP
> Singh meetings on this issue was in court on
> 23/05/05
> but I was unable to wait to figure out what about.
> posts of earlier this month:
> letter of 06/06/05 to DDA VC re Kalkaji Extn
=== message truncated ===

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site

[mpisgmedia] IT Park case / other updates / MPISG meeting, Gita Dewan Verma
Partial thread listing: