on 23.10.05 was reported GNCTD law deptt clearance for
*regularisation* of 11 industrial areas. On 28.10.05
was reported DPCC chief's claim of CM's assurance
about notifications for 17 and sympathetic treatment
of the rest. see:
CM's promise on industrial clusters
http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/28/stories/2005102806960400.htm
On heels of that meaningless announcement, on 29.10.05
was reported Delhi industries minister's Diwali-gift
of option to go freehold in industrial areas. see:
Govt clears the way for industrialists to own plots
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=154985
This puts paid to options for rectifying misuse,
notably commercial, of planned industrial space to
solve the problem of non-conforming industrial use,
notwithstanding the reference in SC judgement of may
04 to prior order in this regard (secured by a
reluctant amicus, after similar gift-offer by then
LG). The combined shenanigans of dull-greens hollering
for closure of largely non-polluting units in name of
pollution, pale-pinks hollering for their
regularisation in name of workers, shady-greys
wheeling-dealing in blunders like bawana (prettily
portfolio-d by architect-planner oxymorons) have come
home in time for retail fdi.
any one seen any serious comment on retail fdi?
in cont of:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00636.shtml
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > How can they do a 11-A here when MoUD affidavit to
> > SC
> > stated 70% INSITU is a significant change to DMP
> > that
> > can cleave fabric of society apart etc.. ??
>
>
> sarabjit, i am posting this to the list. the
> industries affair might now be of interest also to
> others, with same motif surfacing in commercial use
> decisions with bzzz on retail FDI (after noise on
> mixed landuse and hawker-policy and quiet on
> metroPD,
> etc, besides on commercial misuse of prime
> industrial
> space despite reference in judgement of may 04). and
> s.11A discussions should anyway be compulsory (btw,
> next DMP2021 hearing might be Saturday)
>
> deja-vu, complete with prices of onions (recall that
> got us the dikshit govt?):
> in oct 05 was reported demand for *regularisation*
> of
> 23 industrial areas by Delhi Congress chief
> (16.10.05)
> and by Delhi BJP boss (19.10.05) and Asian Age said
> gnctd law deptt has cleared 11 areas (23.10.05).
> s.11A
> public notice of oct 04, of course, was for DMP
> modification (notified may 05) for *redevelopment*.
>
> my favourite, s.11A:
> is in 2 parts - s.11A(1) allows DDA to make changes
> that do not effect important alterations in the
> character of the plan and which do not relate to the
> extent of land uses and population densities (ie,
> they
> do not alter underlying policies/elements,
> allocations
> across uses, carrying-capacity based decisions);
> s.11A(2) allows GoI to make any changes.
>
> *redevelopment*:
> s.11A can be used for this because this is
> contemplated in the Act (as part of definition of
> development in s,2(d)). in case of industries even
> s.11A(1) can be used because redevelopment is
> proposed
> for 3 industrial clusters in DMP2001 (ie, the idea
> is
> part of basic structure of DMP) and the
> alternative-text suggestion I had filed in response
> is
> an example of how:
> http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/m
>
> *regularisation*:
> the oct 04 public notice proposal itself was
> s.11A(2),
> with details that did not conform to (other aspects
> of
> the) basic structure of the Plan and obvious intent
> to
> regularize in the garb of redevelopment (fully
> obvious
> now): glaring case of misuse of s.11A for purposes
> unrelated / contrary to Act and Plan in
> comprehensive
> violation of s.11A procedures (starting with
> publication by gnctd) and utterly misconceived in
> terms of s.11A purpose (viz, rigidly-bound
> flexibility: long-term plans will normally need
> adjustments (s.11A(1)) or even alterations
> (s.11A(2))
> and, in event of abject implementation failure (as
> in
> industries case) s.11A can help find pragmatic as
> well
> as just ways to getting back on course to purposes
> of
> the Plan and Act).
>
> re MoUD affidavit:
> that was prose by Jagmohan, unrelated to DMP / DMP
> modification. ministerial megalomania on affidavit
> was
> useful only to extent of preventing MoUD
> lethargically
> reading (pursuant to chief-ministerial megalomania
> of
> Khurana and Dikshit) in s.11A(2) unfettered powers
> to
> label the problem solution and be done with it. MoUD
> affidavit does not vitiate the public notice per se
> (recall that SC had not quashed it in Nov-Dec).
>
> net net:
> the s.11A public notice is not assailable, misuse of
> s.11A process is (and happens to be inconsistent
> also
> with MoUD affidavit). the danger lies in forgetting
> that it is the law that prevents misuse of s.11A and
> provides the framework for rectification. reliance
> on
> MoUD affidavit will lead to the ludicrous situation
> of
> assailing s.11A to, in effect, divert attention from
> its misuse (over and above the implementation
> failure
> that that prose diverted attention from in the first
> place): case of persistent abuse of the judicial
> process to subvert the law.
>
>
>
> [this is my considered view, for info. i am not
> inclined to discuss the delhi industries mess and am
> watching it for connections to the emergent
> businesses
> on retail fdi and RBH/industry policy for places
> like
> uttaranchal]
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
*regularisation* of 11 industrial areas. On 28.10.05
was reported DPCC chief's claim of CM's assurance
about notifications for 17 and sympathetic treatment
of the rest. see:
CM's promise on industrial clusters
http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/28/stories/2005102806960400.htm
On heels of that meaningless announcement, on 29.10.05
was reported Delhi industries minister's Diwali-gift
of option to go freehold in industrial areas. see:
Govt clears the way for industrialists to own plots
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=154985
This puts paid to options for rectifying misuse,
notably commercial, of planned industrial space to
solve the problem of non-conforming industrial use,
notwithstanding the reference in SC judgement of may
04 to prior order in this regard (secured by a
reluctant amicus, after similar gift-offer by then
LG). The combined shenanigans of dull-greens hollering
for closure of largely non-polluting units in name of
pollution, pale-pinks hollering for their
regularisation in name of workers, shady-greys
wheeling-dealing in blunders like bawana (prettily
portfolio-d by architect-planner oxymorons) have come
home in time for retail fdi.
any one seen any serious comment on retail fdi?
in cont of:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00636.shtml
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > How can they do a 11-A here when MoUD affidavit to
> > SC
> > stated 70% INSITU is a significant change to DMP
> > that
> > can cleave fabric of society apart etc.. ??
>
>
> sarabjit, i am posting this to the list. the
> industries affair might now be of interest also to
> others, with same motif surfacing in commercial use
> decisions with bzzz on retail FDI (after noise on
> mixed landuse and hawker-policy and quiet on
> metroPD,
> etc, besides on commercial misuse of prime
> industrial
> space despite reference in judgement of may 04). and
> s.11A discussions should anyway be compulsory (btw,
> next DMP2021 hearing might be Saturday)
>
> deja-vu, complete with prices of onions (recall that
> got us the dikshit govt?):
> in oct 05 was reported demand for *regularisation*
> of
> 23 industrial areas by Delhi Congress chief
> (16.10.05)
> and by Delhi BJP boss (19.10.05) and Asian Age said
> gnctd law deptt has cleared 11 areas (23.10.05).
> s.11A
> public notice of oct 04, of course, was for DMP
> modification (notified may 05) for *redevelopment*.
>
> my favourite, s.11A:
> is in 2 parts - s.11A(1) allows DDA to make changes
> that do not effect important alterations in the
> character of the plan and which do not relate to the
> extent of land uses and population densities (ie,
> they
> do not alter underlying policies/elements,
> allocations
> across uses, carrying-capacity based decisions);
> s.11A(2) allows GoI to make any changes.
>
> *redevelopment*:
> s.11A can be used for this because this is
> contemplated in the Act (as part of definition of
> development in s,2(d)). in case of industries even
> s.11A(1) can be used because redevelopment is
> proposed
> for 3 industrial clusters in DMP2001 (ie, the idea
> is
> part of basic structure of DMP) and the
> alternative-text suggestion I had filed in response
> is
> an example of how:
> http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/m
>
> *regularisation*:
> the oct 04 public notice proposal itself was
> s.11A(2),
> with details that did not conform to (other aspects
> of
> the) basic structure of the Plan and obvious intent
> to
> regularize in the garb of redevelopment (fully
> obvious
> now): glaring case of misuse of s.11A for purposes
> unrelated / contrary to Act and Plan in
> comprehensive
> violation of s.11A procedures (starting with
> publication by gnctd) and utterly misconceived in
> terms of s.11A purpose (viz, rigidly-bound
> flexibility: long-term plans will normally need
> adjustments (s.11A(1)) or even alterations
> (s.11A(2))
> and, in event of abject implementation failure (as
> in
> industries case) s.11A can help find pragmatic as
> well
> as just ways to getting back on course to purposes
> of
> the Plan and Act).
>
> re MoUD affidavit:
> that was prose by Jagmohan, unrelated to DMP / DMP
> modification. ministerial megalomania on affidavit
> was
> useful only to extent of preventing MoUD
> lethargically
> reading (pursuant to chief-ministerial megalomania
> of
> Khurana and Dikshit) in s.11A(2) unfettered powers
> to
> label the problem solution and be done with it. MoUD
> affidavit does not vitiate the public notice per se
> (recall that SC had not quashed it in Nov-Dec).
>
> net net:
> the s.11A public notice is not assailable, misuse of
> s.11A process is (and happens to be inconsistent
> also
> with MoUD affidavit). the danger lies in forgetting
> that it is the law that prevents misuse of s.11A and
> provides the framework for rectification. reliance
> on
> MoUD affidavit will lead to the ludicrous situation
> of
> assailing s.11A to, in effect, divert attention from
> its misuse (over and above the implementation
> failure
> that that prose diverted attention from in the first
> place): case of persistent abuse of the judicial
> process to subvert the law.
>
>
>
> [this is my considered view, for info. i am not
> inclined to discuss the delhi industries mess and am
> watching it for connections to the emergent
> businesses
> on retail fdi and RBH/industry policy for places
> like
> uttaranchal]
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com