HOO HOO HOO !!!
WAY TO GO !!!!
GRRRRR-88888 !!!!
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
WAY TO GO !!!!
GRRRRR-88888 !!!!
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs