text of order of 27/07/05, available on
http://www.courtnic.nic.in/
while dmrc website has letter of 01/08/05 extending
bid-opening to 15/08/05 but not mentioning stay and
also further bid-invitation for IT Park and none of
the respondents have bothered to file replies; poonam
posted to the list and some prospective bidders mailed
to me letters they have written; links to petition and
applications are in the post of 27/07/05 included
after the text of the order (CM 9019/2005 mentioned in
that was for exemption from filing certified copy of
order of 03/03/03 for removal of all unauthorised
structures on the riverbed and banks)
-------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 6500/2005
GITA DEWAN VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.Muralidhar with Mr.K.P.Gopalkrishnan,
Advocate.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION and ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent
No.1/DMRC.
Mr. Virender Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. Sunil Bagai, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
O R D E R
27.07.2005
CM 9019/2005 in W.P.(C) 6500/2005
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM 9018/2005 in W.P.(C) 6500/2005
List on 29th August, 2005.
In the meanwhile, the respondent may process the
tenders received pursuant to the advertisement dated
15.7.2005 but shall not finalize the same till the
next date of hearing before this Court.
Dasti.
W.P.(C) 6500/2005
List on 29th August, 2005, the date already fixed.
JULY 27, 2005 MUKUL MUDGAL, J
sb
--------
--- 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.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://www.courtnic.nic.in/
while dmrc website has letter of 01/08/05 extending
bid-opening to 15/08/05 but not mentioning stay and
also further bid-invitation for IT Park and none of
the respondents have bothered to file replies; poonam
posted to the list and some prospective bidders mailed
to me letters they have written; links to petition and
applications are in the post of 27/07/05 included
after the text of the order (CM 9019/2005 mentioned in
that was for exemption from filing certified copy of
order of 03/03/03 for removal of all unauthorised
structures on the riverbed and banks)
-------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 6500/2005
GITA DEWAN VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.Muralidhar with Mr.K.P.Gopalkrishnan,
Advocate.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION and ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent
No.1/DMRC.
Mr. Virender Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. Sunil Bagai, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
O R D E R
27.07.2005
CM 9019/2005 in W.P.(C) 6500/2005
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM 9018/2005 in W.P.(C) 6500/2005
List on 29th August, 2005.
In the meanwhile, the respondent may process the
tenders received pursuant to the advertisement dated
15.7.2005 but shall not finalize the same till the
next date of hearing before this Court.
Dasti.
W.P.(C) 6500/2005
List on 29th August, 2005, the date already fixed.
JULY 27, 2005 MUKUL MUDGAL, J
sb
--------
--- 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.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail