Dear Gita,
Thanks for a very detailed post.
We are still in middle game (chesswise) and NOT
trapped. When the game is not played by the Rules -
break the board, walk away and drag them onto your
turf.
1) Writing long letters etc. may not work - there is
already enough documentation to show engagement. It's
time for telegrams (obtain certified copies by paying
Rs. 3 extra) to Prez (as Central Government), short 1
page leters to LG, AKJain(as secy Enquiry Board), then
its time for the Real Monty.
2) Another route is also open (you wont like this
one), you can file RTIs "now" under the new law. This
saves 10 days. Here are the details - it would be
interesting to see if DDA is prepared for the RTI
onslaught. Asian Age had it today.
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&cat1=7&cat2=48&newsid=184492&RF=DefaultMain
Here's another link (BETTER) to it since Asian Age
link stpos working after 24 hours due to poor
webdesign technology.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cyberlaw-india/message/2147
I am facing the same problem about procedural
bypassing in my fight against the Information
Technology Act 2005 amendments.
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Thanks for a very detailed post.
We are still in middle game (chesswise) and NOT
trapped. When the game is not played by the Rules -
break the board, walk away and drag them onto your
turf.
1) Writing long letters etc. may not work - there is
already enough documentation to show engagement. It's
time for telegrams (obtain certified copies by paying
Rs. 3 extra) to Prez (as Central Government), short 1
page leters to LG, AKJain(as secy Enquiry Board), then
its time for the Real Monty.
2) Another route is also open (you wont like this
one), you can file RTIs "now" under the new law. This
saves 10 days. Here are the details - it would be
interesting to see if DDA is prepared for the RTI
onslaught. Asian Age had it today.
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&cat1=7&cat2=48&newsid=184492&RF=DefaultMain
Here's another link (BETTER) to it since Asian Age
link stpos working after 24 hours due to poor
webdesign technology.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cyberlaw-india/message/2147
I am facing the same problem about procedural
bypassing in my fight against the Information
Technology Act 2005 amendments.
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com