[mpisgmedia] Court Craft (a few matters heard on 27/07/05 in Delhi High Court)

As far as I know, stay on DMRC tender for
recreation-facility on riverbed has not been reported
in the press. Prospective bidders who saw my
mailing-lists posts told me that DMRC chief urban
planner is saying he was present in court and no stay
was given!!!

I have told bidders to stay out of planner v/s planner
disagreement about what lordship said and to mind, as
is expected, their business (and, for that, given
friendly plannerly advice to ask DMRC for rebuttal on
website or via PRO and, for any further clarification
or moral support for bid-writing, also for
fax-letters, etc, and if they like for view of MoEF
and Tourism ministry, etc).

If I have a copy of the order before tender-opening
time of 16:00 hrs on 01/08/05 I might go and paste in
DMRC premises (in exercise of responsibility for
information that must have become fundamental duty to
match right to information).

Meanwhile, MIB who counsel me are doing needful to
file something called caveat and I am overjoyed by
prospect of new item on my cv as litigant.


mpisg PIL against unrestricted auctions in
residential-area markets (nowadays for malls) also
came up on 27/07/05, at item 5 in court 1. This is the
one in court since 2002 without specific prayer (and
since Jan 2003 without replies) that got dismissed for
non-prosecution after we asked for Passover (not
allowed in first 10) when matter reached minutes
before counsel and then got restored after we paid
5000 cost. DDA paid 10000 cost and finally filed
counter-affidavit on 27/05/05 and we filed rejoinder
to say counter does not answer our petition and speaks
of some policy-level-thinking that is same as the
illegalities we challenged in 2002.

On 27/07/05 DDA senor counsel was in court, but
suddenly left as item 4 concluded. Maybe because
Passover is not allowed in first 10, Chief Justice
felt constrained to adjourn, to 21/09/05.

We are overjoyed to have rare/scare PIL lasting 3
years without specific prayer.


In the farmhouse misuse policy matter contempt notice
was issued to MCD Commissioner while DDA counsel (same
as suddenly disappeared) claimed no role:

Now, farmhouse misuse is an issue in mpisg PIL of 2003
against unplanned development in mehrauli-mahipalpur
area and request of November 2004 (when other PIL was
reported) to all to answer in both PIL issues raised
in our letter of February 2004 (when farmhouse misuse
policy was announced) led to a GNCTD forwarding to DDA
VC and MCD Commissioner. DDA reply was fuzzy, but did
not claim no-role in farmhouse zone. MCD reply claimed
no-role in the area.

We are overjoyed by the muddle (actually, farmhouse
misuse policy was at instance of CM) since our PIL is
listed next week.


The last item in court 1 was 26, the suo motto matter
for compliance of order of 03/03/03 against all
unauthorised structures on the riverbed (contempt of
the same is one of the grounds in my case against CM
inaugurated IT Park and just stayed DMRC tender).

Letter to LG wrt news reports of the proceedings in
the suo motto matter (and unreported stay on tender
that DMRC might have issued partly in anticipation):
Letter to Delhi Urban Development Minister wrt news
report of him asking MCD slum & jj to expedite its
proposal for 21,000 unit builder housing in contempt
of court orders in the same matter in which order of
03/03/03 was passed (wrt to duly filed objections to
the land acquisition in 2003):

I am deeply disgusted, but could say I am overjoyed by
the continuing coincidence of pushta and shastri-park
orders and by resumption of hearings in Arjun Camp
cases as flatted-slum wind blows again.


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

  • Re: [mpisgmedia] Court Craft (a few matters heard on 27/07/05 in Delhi High Court)
    • From: sarbajit roy
  • Re: [mpisgmedia] Court Craft (a few matters heard on 27/07/05 in Delhi High Court)
    • From: sarbajit roy
  • Partial thread listing: