Huh,
How did 7 industrial clusters reported by ToI as
suitable for regularisation end up as 11 in Asian Age
and now as 17 in Hindu. The "shady greys" are afoot.
Am cnfused by the alleged connection between
retail-fdi and industry regn.
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
How did 7 industrial clusters reported by ToI as
suitable for regularisation end up as 11 in Asian Age
and now as 17 in Hindu. The "shady greys" are afoot.
Am cnfused by the alleged connection between
retail-fdi and industry regn.
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com