An illegal Board has started today illegal NGO-style
hearings at PHD House and VPSingh/Sajha-Munch, who
have made illegal demand for their nominee to be on
Board, plan to protest bureaucratic-style functioning
outside DDA Vikas Sadan. we are trapped between two
illegal choices. we know we have been trapped. what
will we do now? *now*. the endgame has begun.
The story so far:
26.09.2005:
An Asst Director in DDA issued letters inviting some
to present their objections/suggestions before the
Board of Enquiry and Hearing at 9:30 AM on 03.10.2005
at PHD House.
28.09.2005:
Some letters were dispatched by courier (eg, mine by
Blazeflash Couriers Limited, *212715838)
[impelled by illegal demand of DunuRoy/VPSingh to be
on Board, I responded to Public Notice of 31.08.2005
for change of land use for builder scheme on nearly 20
Ha of District Park, in name of poor /
mumbai-model-for-delhi idea that originated in meeting
of October 2002 between UDM Ananth Kumar and
VPSingh/Sanjha NGOs]
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/050928
29.09.2005:
My letter and those to Rajinder & Nizamuddin (2 of 7
mpisg conveners who have filed detailed comment on
different chapters) and Ashok (one of dozens who filed
independent suggestions based on their mpisg court
matters, etc), arrived by courier at my address.
Afternoon of 29.09.2005 was holiday.
[My response of 28.09.2005, inclusive of request to be
allowed, under Rule-9, personal hearing responses, esp
of NGOs, not based on prior engagements via Public
Notice, court matters, etc, was receipted at Vikas
Sadan].
30.09.2005:
Sarabjit, not invited, served notice-in-law to ask to
be properly invited before 9:30 AM on 03.10.2005, etc.
I called Asst Director for clarifications and learnt,
instead, that the composition of the Board itself is
illegal in terms of Rule-8.
01.10.2005:
I dispatched by courier an urgent application
u/s.41(3) to LG for examination of legality and
propriety of DMP-2021 hearings and suspension in the
interim
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/051001
02.10.2005
Rajinder, Nizamuddin and Ashok decided to present
request for rescheduling of their hearings till after
disposal of my application, for joint hearings, etc.
translated text of their letter:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/051002
03.10.2005: (or 02.10.2005 late night)
I saw Asian Age report that Poonam had spotted earlier
in the day, about the proposed demonstration by
Sajha-Munch/VPSingh and wrote out complaint to Police
Commissioner (that, with copy to LG, should have been
deposited by hand by now).
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/051003
nalini, invited, called from bangalore to say she had
written to DDA for rescheduling her hearing since she
was not in town.
03.10.2005:
The Hearings started at PHD House. (I saw while
looking, as asked by the regn desk, for my name in the
list of invitees the name of Dinesh Mohan and I saw in
the hall KT Ravindran, ie, SanjhaMunch is aware of
start of hearings).
The event occurred in Hall. On the dais were DDA VC
Dinesh Rai (behind plaque that said Chairman), flanked
by DDA Commissioner-Planning AK Jain (to his right, ie
left in audience view, behind plaque that said
Convener) and TCPO Chief Planner KT Gurumukhi (to
left, behind plaque that said Member). On left of
Gurmukhi were, behind Member plaques, a DDA engineer
and an official of its DMP2021 office. On the right of
AK Jain was another official of DMP2021 office and,
after tea, an MCD Planner, both also behind Member
plaques.
The session before tea was hijacked by those named as
authors of the Plan in various sub-groups who have
also filed objections/suggestions on it (they claimed
as Institute of Town Planners India, DUAC Heritage
Committee, and Punjab-Haryana-Delhi Chamber of
Commerce, though I doubt if they have filed proof of
permission to file on behalf of all their members,
including in case of ITPI KT Gurumukhi and AK Jain and
MCD Planner seated on the dais). Each of these
responses were presented by several people. OP Jain
also presented the response of INTACH, not invited,
and Ashish Maitra of ITPI added to response of
Heritage Committee (though I doubt if he/ITPI had
sought or been granted hearing under Rule-9 on other
responses). The PHDCC people presented in large
numbers (when Poonam Prakash objected, she was allowed
to present her response before the PHDCC people
resumed). The FICCI people had not appeared and in
their slot Delhi Medical Association people (who have
been demanding nursing homes in residential areas and
the relaxation on plot level controls for which Public
Notice was issued in DMP2021 Public Notice period)
broke queue on plea of having work to do.
All these institutional NGO people left after having
their say or tea, except PHDCC people who continued to
present their ideas in the post-tea session, after
which some people were called upon to present their
responses: a forum for Lal Dora, one of ice-cream
manufacturers, two market associations. Then I was
asked to present. Having already, over coffee, given
AK Jain an earful about the presence of DMP2021
authors amongst those allowed hearing and asked Dinesh
Rai to kindly ensure that my hearing happens according
to Rules, I began by saying I wished to first confirm
that my hearing is as per Rules.
I pointed out proviso to Rule-9 that allows the Board
to disallow personal hearing and mentioned the Public
Notices on which that had been exercised to deny me
hearing and asked why it had not been exercised to
deny hearing to DMP2021 authors who had wasted our
time in the morning. Pointing out Rule-9 opportunity
for allowing hearing on responses of other persons I
asked why that had not been allowed to us while the
authors spoke even as it was allowed to ITPI on the
Heritage Committee presentation. With reference to
Rule-8 I first asked MCD Planner who had seated
himself on the dais post-tea to please introduce
himself to us. I then pointed out Rule-8(2) that
requires presence of at least three Board Members from
beginning to end of any meeting and asked the Chairman
to please identify the three on the dais. He
identified himself and TCPO Chief and said AK Jain was
Secretary / Convener and that the engineer represented
EM and MCD Planner represented Commissioner. I asked
again for the third member other than DDA VC and TCPO
Chief. AK Jain said he was convenor and I informed
him, with proper regret, that he could not be a Member
under the Rules and asked again for the third member.
There was silence and I said I would proceed if they
assure me this Board and this meeting are legal. AK
Jain said proceed and Dinesh Rai nodded. I then said I
would read my 1p response, since it was not open to
the Board to hear me except in connection with it. I
proceeded to read, asking them to take note of the
parts that made clear it is not objection/suggestion
on DMP2021 and I am not filing one. I then asked under
what Rule had they invited me to present this and why
they had not called me for hearing on other responses
related to court matters that I am associated with,
such as several just presented, even as they had
considered the illegal request of independent-nominee
of SanjhaNGOs/VPSingh to be on Board.
After a brief silence, DDA VC called the next name and
I got up and started collecting my papers, glasses,
cell, tissue, etc, till he had called all 3 next names
(Rajinder, Nizamuddin, Ashok). I then said those were
the gentlemen who had been sitting beside me and two
had left because it was unclear if their turn would
reach and since they had all decided to make a joint
presentation and the third had left after DDA officers
declined to accept their letter during Tea-break. I
asked if I could take a moment to present the same
since they are associated with MPISG, I am MPISG
Planner and their letters had been sent to my address
that is MPISG address for correspondence. I was
allowed to present and I did. I asked if their request
for joint hearings and details of who is not being
allowed hearing is likely to be considered. No one
seemed inclined to answer, so I told them it did not
matter since I was constrained to make a s.41(3)
application for examination of legality of this Board
and its proceedings.
By the time I reached the door, the next name had been
called.
----
Do please browse the urls in this post.
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
hearings at PHD House and VPSingh/Sajha-Munch, who
have made illegal demand for their nominee to be on
Board, plan to protest bureaucratic-style functioning
outside DDA Vikas Sadan. we are trapped between two
illegal choices. we know we have been trapped. what
will we do now? *now*. the endgame has begun.
The story so far:
26.09.2005:
An Asst Director in DDA issued letters inviting some
to present their objections/suggestions before the
Board of Enquiry and Hearing at 9:30 AM on 03.10.2005
at PHD House.
28.09.2005:
Some letters were dispatched by courier (eg, mine by
Blazeflash Couriers Limited, *212715838)
[impelled by illegal demand of DunuRoy/VPSingh to be
on Board, I responded to Public Notice of 31.08.2005
for change of land use for builder scheme on nearly 20
Ha of District Park, in name of poor /
mumbai-model-for-delhi idea that originated in meeting
of October 2002 between UDM Ananth Kumar and
VPSingh/Sanjha NGOs]
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/050928
29.09.2005:
My letter and those to Rajinder & Nizamuddin (2 of 7
mpisg conveners who have filed detailed comment on
different chapters) and Ashok (one of dozens who filed
independent suggestions based on their mpisg court
matters, etc), arrived by courier at my address.
Afternoon of 29.09.2005 was holiday.
[My response of 28.09.2005, inclusive of request to be
allowed, under Rule-9, personal hearing responses, esp
of NGOs, not based on prior engagements via Public
Notice, court matters, etc, was receipted at Vikas
Sadan].
30.09.2005:
Sarabjit, not invited, served notice-in-law to ask to
be properly invited before 9:30 AM on 03.10.2005, etc.
I called Asst Director for clarifications and learnt,
instead, that the composition of the Board itself is
illegal in terms of Rule-8.
01.10.2005:
I dispatched by courier an urgent application
u/s.41(3) to LG for examination of legality and
propriety of DMP-2021 hearings and suspension in the
interim
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/051001
02.10.2005
Rajinder, Nizamuddin and Ashok decided to present
request for rescheduling of their hearings till after
disposal of my application, for joint hearings, etc.
translated text of their letter:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/051002
03.10.2005: (or 02.10.2005 late night)
I saw Asian Age report that Poonam had spotted earlier
in the day, about the proposed demonstration by
Sajha-Munch/VPSingh and wrote out complaint to Police
Commissioner (that, with copy to LG, should have been
deposited by hand by now).
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/051003
nalini, invited, called from bangalore to say she had
written to DDA for rescheduling her hearing since she
was not in town.
03.10.2005:
The Hearings started at PHD House. (I saw while
looking, as asked by the regn desk, for my name in the
list of invitees the name of Dinesh Mohan and I saw in
the hall KT Ravindran, ie, SanjhaMunch is aware of
start of hearings).
The event occurred in Hall. On the dais were DDA VC
Dinesh Rai (behind plaque that said Chairman), flanked
by DDA Commissioner-Planning AK Jain (to his right, ie
left in audience view, behind plaque that said
Convener) and TCPO Chief Planner KT Gurumukhi (to
left, behind plaque that said Member). On left of
Gurmukhi were, behind Member plaques, a DDA engineer
and an official of its DMP2021 office. On the right of
AK Jain was another official of DMP2021 office and,
after tea, an MCD Planner, both also behind Member
plaques.
The session before tea was hijacked by those named as
authors of the Plan in various sub-groups who have
also filed objections/suggestions on it (they claimed
as Institute of Town Planners India, DUAC Heritage
Committee, and Punjab-Haryana-Delhi Chamber of
Commerce, though I doubt if they have filed proof of
permission to file on behalf of all their members,
including in case of ITPI KT Gurumukhi and AK Jain and
MCD Planner seated on the dais). Each of these
responses were presented by several people. OP Jain
also presented the response of INTACH, not invited,
and Ashish Maitra of ITPI added to response of
Heritage Committee (though I doubt if he/ITPI had
sought or been granted hearing under Rule-9 on other
responses). The PHDCC people presented in large
numbers (when Poonam Prakash objected, she was allowed
to present her response before the PHDCC people
resumed). The FICCI people had not appeared and in
their slot Delhi Medical Association people (who have
been demanding nursing homes in residential areas and
the relaxation on plot level controls for which Public
Notice was issued in DMP2021 Public Notice period)
broke queue on plea of having work to do.
All these institutional NGO people left after having
their say or tea, except PHDCC people who continued to
present their ideas in the post-tea session, after
which some people were called upon to present their
responses: a forum for Lal Dora, one of ice-cream
manufacturers, two market associations. Then I was
asked to present. Having already, over coffee, given
AK Jain an earful about the presence of DMP2021
authors amongst those allowed hearing and asked Dinesh
Rai to kindly ensure that my hearing happens according
to Rules, I began by saying I wished to first confirm
that my hearing is as per Rules.
I pointed out proviso to Rule-9 that allows the Board
to disallow personal hearing and mentioned the Public
Notices on which that had been exercised to deny me
hearing and asked why it had not been exercised to
deny hearing to DMP2021 authors who had wasted our
time in the morning. Pointing out Rule-9 opportunity
for allowing hearing on responses of other persons I
asked why that had not been allowed to us while the
authors spoke even as it was allowed to ITPI on the
Heritage Committee presentation. With reference to
Rule-8 I first asked MCD Planner who had seated
himself on the dais post-tea to please introduce
himself to us. I then pointed out Rule-8(2) that
requires presence of at least three Board Members from
beginning to end of any meeting and asked the Chairman
to please identify the three on the dais. He
identified himself and TCPO Chief and said AK Jain was
Secretary / Convener and that the engineer represented
EM and MCD Planner represented Commissioner. I asked
again for the third member other than DDA VC and TCPO
Chief. AK Jain said he was convenor and I informed
him, with proper regret, that he could not be a Member
under the Rules and asked again for the third member.
There was silence and I said I would proceed if they
assure me this Board and this meeting are legal. AK
Jain said proceed and Dinesh Rai nodded. I then said I
would read my 1p response, since it was not open to
the Board to hear me except in connection with it. I
proceeded to read, asking them to take note of the
parts that made clear it is not objection/suggestion
on DMP2021 and I am not filing one. I then asked under
what Rule had they invited me to present this and why
they had not called me for hearing on other responses
related to court matters that I am associated with,
such as several just presented, even as they had
considered the illegal request of independent-nominee
of SanjhaNGOs/VPSingh to be on Board.
After a brief silence, DDA VC called the next name and
I got up and started collecting my papers, glasses,
cell, tissue, etc, till he had called all 3 next names
(Rajinder, Nizamuddin, Ashok). I then said those were
the gentlemen who had been sitting beside me and two
had left because it was unclear if their turn would
reach and since they had all decided to make a joint
presentation and the third had left after DDA officers
declined to accept their letter during Tea-break. I
asked if I could take a moment to present the same
since they are associated with MPISG, I am MPISG
Planner and their letters had been sent to my address
that is MPISG address for correspondence. I was
allowed to present and I did. I asked if their request
for joint hearings and details of who is not being
allowed hearing is likely to be considered. No one
seemed inclined to answer, so I told them it did not
matter since I was constrained to make a s.41(3)
application for examination of legality of this Board
and its proceedings.
By the time I reached the door, the next name had been
called.
----
Do please browse the urls in this post.
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/