Delhi High Court (HMJ Mukul Mudgal) passed today an
order restraining till next hearing (29/08/05) in WP
6500/2005 DMRC from finalising the bids it has invited
for licensing to private developers at minimum fee of
5 crore 15 Hectares (plus 2.7 Ha for parking) at
Shastri Park on Yamuna riverbed for 15 years for
so-called temporary recreation/entertainment facility.
The application filed on 25/07/05 on which the order
was passed is posted at:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/metro/cm9018
(The petition and previous application are also posted
in the same folder)
All four respondents (DMRC, MoUD, GNCTD and DDA) were
represented in court today. None have filed replies in
the petition on orders of 13/04/05 and 23/05/05. None
had anything of any consequence to say in defence of
the fresh prima-facie illegality or their indifference
to court orders. KG Gopalkrishnan and S Muralidhar won
the stay quite effortlessly.
Apart from the plannerly-legalese on which the
petition (filed on 07/04/05) is based, the tender of
15/07/05 raises serious questions also about
(subsequent) DDA privatisation proposal pending
central government approval, guidelines for PPP in
eco-visitation that MoEF is formulating, the debate
about water (Yamuna flood plains being duly notified
ground water reserve). A joint venture of central and
capital government feels free to pre-empt frameworks
in the making. A utility outfit elevated by PR to
icon-class feels competent to set parameters for
privatisation and eco-visitation in violation of
development and environment law. No less than the
riverbed is sought to be lawlessly licensed for 15
years temporary development to parties that can pay up
at least 5 crores. And capital gods-of-all-things
busily fuss about aesthetics of metro corridors with
no reference to relevant law or related court matters
or Public Notices (to, in effect, demand options
calling for more wilfulness in name of
somehow-compelling metro-property-development).
We are delighted to have won a stay that highlights
this portrait of anomie.
We hope it will be used to raise question about
obviously arbitrary decisions being taken in several
matters and would appreciate information of any such
questions.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
order restraining till next hearing (29/08/05) in WP
6500/2005 DMRC from finalising the bids it has invited
for licensing to private developers at minimum fee of
5 crore 15 Hectares (plus 2.7 Ha for parking) at
Shastri Park on Yamuna riverbed for 15 years for
so-called temporary recreation/entertainment facility.
The application filed on 25/07/05 on which the order
was passed is posted at:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/metro/cm9018
(The petition and previous application are also posted
in the same folder)
All four respondents (DMRC, MoUD, GNCTD and DDA) were
represented in court today. None have filed replies in
the petition on orders of 13/04/05 and 23/05/05. None
had anything of any consequence to say in defence of
the fresh prima-facie illegality or their indifference
to court orders. KG Gopalkrishnan and S Muralidhar won
the stay quite effortlessly.
Apart from the plannerly-legalese on which the
petition (filed on 07/04/05) is based, the tender of
15/07/05 raises serious questions also about
(subsequent) DDA privatisation proposal pending
central government approval, guidelines for PPP in
eco-visitation that MoEF is formulating, the debate
about water (Yamuna flood plains being duly notified
ground water reserve). A joint venture of central and
capital government feels free to pre-empt frameworks
in the making. A utility outfit elevated by PR to
icon-class feels competent to set parameters for
privatisation and eco-visitation in violation of
development and environment law. No less than the
riverbed is sought to be lawlessly licensed for 15
years temporary development to parties that can pay up
at least 5 crores. And capital gods-of-all-things
busily fuss about aesthetics of metro corridors with
no reference to relevant law or related court matters
or Public Notices (to, in effect, demand options
calling for more wilfulness in name of
somehow-compelling metro-property-development).
We are delighted to have won a stay that highlights
this portrait of anomie.
We hope it will be used to raise question about
obviously arbitrary decisions being taken in several
matters and would appreciate information of any such
questions.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs