Hi,
See this link :-
Industry gets to stay on in Delhi - Hooray.
http://cities.expressindia.com/archivefullstory.php?newsid=141463&creation_date=2005-07-29
What happened to my mpd2021 chapter 15 objections?
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
>
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=141342
>
http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/28/stories/2005072807710400.htm
>
> 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):
>
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/riverbed/050729
> 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):
> http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/h/050729
>
> 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
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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
See this link :-
Industry gets to stay on in Delhi - Hooray.
http://cities.expressindia.com/archivefullstory.php?newsid=141463&creation_date=2005-07-29
What happened to my mpd2021 chapter 15 objections?
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
>
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=141342
>
http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/28/stories/2005072807710400.htm
>
> 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):
>
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/riverbed/050729
> 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):
> http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/h/050729
>
> 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
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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