Congratulations!
My letter to Commissioner (planning) to respond to my earlier objections on
the Shastri Park
Subject: Stay order on tender for Temporary Amusement Park advertised by the
DMRC.
Ref: Response to Public Notice inviting objections/suggestions for the
Change of Use at Shastri Park
Mr. Jain,
I understand that the court has stayed the tender for Temporary Recreation
Park advertised by the DMRC. To my knowledge there were three public notices
dated 16 December 2002 ( change of use on metro land along metro
corridor),17 April 2004 (Master Plan/Zonal Plan modifications) , 18
September 2004 (Change of Land use in the river bed for metro property
development) related to metro corridor development. None of these notices
specifically mentioned this proposal. In case I have missed the notice for
change of use under section 11A for this proposal, response from the DDA on
my objections/suggestions on the above mentioned notices is still awaited.
This tender invited private sector involvement for the recreation park on
license basis, while the privatization proposal by the DDA is still awaiting
approval. Basis for private sector involvement prior to the approval by the
Centre is thus not clear. Is it on some special permission clauses in the
DDA proposal. Since the media reports were incomplete on the DDA proposal,
is it possible to get a copy of the proposal of the DDA on privatization for
greater clarity?
Further, I think planning fraternity needs to resolve some of the issues
raised through this situation amongst themselves. As you would be aware that
this tender is advertised in the name of Sh. K.Srinath, Chief Planner, DMRC,
and the stay has been granted on a petition filed by planner, Gita Dewan
Verma. Sh.K.Srinath in a Seminar on Spatial Planning Reforms in the SPA
(which planners from the DDA also attended), in March 2005, in response to
the question on whether Metro has compromised on procedures, said the
citizens of Delhi will have to make a choice as to whether they want Metro
or they want law. It is difficult while teaching, to explain such
response by planners in responsible positions in World Class organizations
like the Metro, when these issues are raised by students. I am sure you
would appreciate as a planner, who is also interested in planning education,
as to why this is distressing. Your early reply , therefore, to a planner
like myself will be extremely useful in clarifying these aspects in the
interest of planning education.
Thanks and regards
Sincerely,
Poonam Prakash
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:25 PM
Subject: [mpisgmedia] High Court Stay on tender for licensing 15 Ha
ofriverbed to private developers
> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 7/27/05
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/05
My letter to Commissioner (planning) to respond to my earlier objections on
the Shastri Park
Subject: Stay order on tender for Temporary Amusement Park advertised by the
DMRC.
Ref: Response to Public Notice inviting objections/suggestions for the
Change of Use at Shastri Park
Mr. Jain,
I understand that the court has stayed the tender for Temporary Recreation
Park advertised by the DMRC. To my knowledge there were three public notices
dated 16 December 2002 ( change of use on metro land along metro
corridor),17 April 2004 (Master Plan/Zonal Plan modifications) , 18
September 2004 (Change of Land use in the river bed for metro property
development) related to metro corridor development. None of these notices
specifically mentioned this proposal. In case I have missed the notice for
change of use under section 11A for this proposal, response from the DDA on
my objections/suggestions on the above mentioned notices is still awaited.
This tender invited private sector involvement for the recreation park on
license basis, while the privatization proposal by the DDA is still awaiting
approval. Basis for private sector involvement prior to the approval by the
Centre is thus not clear. Is it on some special permission clauses in the
DDA proposal. Since the media reports were incomplete on the DDA proposal,
is it possible to get a copy of the proposal of the DDA on privatization for
greater clarity?
Further, I think planning fraternity needs to resolve some of the issues
raised through this situation amongst themselves. As you would be aware that
this tender is advertised in the name of Sh. K.Srinath, Chief Planner, DMRC,
and the stay has been granted on a petition filed by planner, Gita Dewan
Verma. Sh.K.Srinath in a Seminar on Spatial Planning Reforms in the SPA
(which planners from the DDA also attended), in March 2005, in response to
the question on whether Metro has compromised on procedures, said the
citizens of Delhi will have to make a choice as to whether they want Metro
or they want law. It is difficult while teaching, to explain such
response by planners in responsible positions in World Class organizations
like the Metro, when these issues are raised by students. I am sure you
would appreciate as a planner, who is also interested in planning education,
as to why this is distressing. Your early reply , therefore, to a planner
like myself will be extremely useful in clarifying these aspects in the
interest of planning education.
Thanks and regards
Sincerely,
Poonam Prakash
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:25 PM
Subject: [mpisgmedia] High Court Stay on tender for licensing 15 Ha
ofriverbed to private developers
> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 7/27/05
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/05