===
(all) please share any successes with s.6, so we can
identify authorities inclined to take it seriously and
work with them rather than join GNCTD/NGO shenanigans
in name of our RTI
===
sarabjit dear
re returns from s.4 spamming (query in reply to post
re NBSAP, DJB, etc): nothing from dmrc, sweet mails
from dda, regd post from moef, chat invite from dept
of commerce. no info yet, but that is no problem. I do
not need the info, only want them to disclose it and
make that healthy-habit. why use s.6 for what I do not
need when there is s.4 for what I want!
points-to-ponder re suggested sixers (in reply to
poonam re DJB, NGOs, etc):
* should one first s.6 DJB for info of what it knows
of s.6 pilot-project that RTI eminences have made it?
(and, btw, paani thekedari in slums is replay of bijli
thekedari en-route shoddy power privatization; MoEF
represented GoI on DUEIIP that road-mapped next-gen
reform; water and riverbed mess is entwined; GNCTD has
no jurisdiction over land/ground)
* how to s.6 games? (there are no plans except dikshit
family-business flexi plans, no authority except CM
and a GoM, etc)
* who how why to s.6 re sandip baba taking child-art
to momma kitchen cabinet saying want-like-this and
uncles promising to get from hudco or dda mall?
(baijal uncle? he has hudco & dda and also metro corp
that invited momma with baba in tow to inaugurate IT
Park, and filed in supreme court in September
Thames-like-Yamuna concept-plan. or Authority of DDA?
it approved on 19.10.05 more land for games. or Prez
and PM? they went gung-ho at akshardham inauguration.
or Parliament? re new rules that allow/require MPs to
skirt Parliament reps on DDA & urban development
Standing Committee and stroll into momma cabinet. etc.
etc.)
my akshardham games village s.4 post of 08.11.05 cc,
recovered, could be re-mail, in which case no
apologies for double-spamming -- am doubly cut up: re
PM that twice partied at tomb being at temple
dedicating and re Prez dedicating temple with oath to
enrich nation by commissioning 1000 Akshardham PURAs
in 5 years under inspirational leadership of His
Divine Holiness... Official, see:
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=13101
nothing to s.4 about such suo motu disclosure, which
also does not facilitate / minimise resort to s.6.
could ask for suo motu disclosures not strictly
compliant with s.4 to be declared spamming!!
also to prevent s.6 enthusiasts from declaring my
counter-spam efforts in support of s.4 spamming ;)
on 08/11/05
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shri BN Singh
> Director [PRE&R]
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Kindly refer to our prior correspondence, at:
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00643.shtml
> wherein I had made, in an e-mail addressed to
> designated PIOs/AAs, certain observations re RTI
> administration in DDA and (alternative) request to
> facilitate my RTI in respect of Authority meeting of
> 19.10.05, which I reiterate. (Despite not being a
> PIO/AA, you had replied to my e-mail and in response
> I
> had reiterated my requests re Authority meeting. I
> have not heard from you since then or from
> designated
> PIOs/AAs).
>
> Meanwhile, there have been further developments on
> matters relating to the Authority meeting of
> 19.10.05
> and, in context of inauguration of Akshardham Temple
> and with reference to your remark about politics and
> DD Act, I seek now clarification of conformity with
> DD
> Act of the expanding Games Village next to
> Akshardham
> Temple, for which additional land acquisition was
> reportedly approved at Authority meeting on
> 19.10.05.
> In this regard, kindly refer also to:
> (1)
> MPISG communication dated 23.10.2004 to request,
> inter-alia, that "responses received to IT Park
> Public
> Notice be considered also "doubts" about the
> proposal
> for locating the Games Village on riverbed,
> requiring
> clearing in spirit of s.11A", (wrt news item,
> 'Manmohan, GoM get cracking with the Games', that
> said, "Supreme Court's refusal to grant stay on
> construction of the Akshardham temple on the Yamuna
> river bed cleared all doubts about the location of
> Games village"), at:
>
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/riverbed/041023
> (2)
> The common observations of the Board / Committee
> appointed by the Authority for Public Notice for
> proposal to change land use for commercial IT Park
> on
> the riverbed on all objections/suggestions (filed in
> Additional Affidavit dated 18.10.2005 on behalf of
> DDA
> in WP 6500/2005, Gita Dewan Verma v/s DMRC & Ors)
> that
> proceed from: "It was informed that the building of
> IT
> Park has already been constructed by DMRC, therefore
> this is a case of de-facto approval of change of
> landuse. The SSB did not appreciate the construction
> of IT Park prior to change of landuse and is of the
> view that such cases of de-facto approval will not
> be
> considered and returned/rejected summarily in the
> future...".
>
> Thanking you and looking forward to your reply,
>
> Yours sincerely
> Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>
> cc: for continuing information
> * PIO/AAs (as per last mail)
> * mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
(all) please share any successes with s.6, so we can
identify authorities inclined to take it seriously and
work with them rather than join GNCTD/NGO shenanigans
in name of our RTI
===
sarabjit dear
re returns from s.4 spamming (query in reply to post
re NBSAP, DJB, etc): nothing from dmrc, sweet mails
from dda, regd post from moef, chat invite from dept
of commerce. no info yet, but that is no problem. I do
not need the info, only want them to disclose it and
make that healthy-habit. why use s.6 for what I do not
need when there is s.4 for what I want!
points-to-ponder re suggested sixers (in reply to
poonam re DJB, NGOs, etc):
* should one first s.6 DJB for info of what it knows
of s.6 pilot-project that RTI eminences have made it?
(and, btw, paani thekedari in slums is replay of bijli
thekedari en-route shoddy power privatization; MoEF
represented GoI on DUEIIP that road-mapped next-gen
reform; water and riverbed mess is entwined; GNCTD has
no jurisdiction over land/ground)
* how to s.6 games? (there are no plans except dikshit
family-business flexi plans, no authority except CM
and a GoM, etc)
* who how why to s.6 re sandip baba taking child-art
to momma kitchen cabinet saying want-like-this and
uncles promising to get from hudco or dda mall?
(baijal uncle? he has hudco & dda and also metro corp
that invited momma with baba in tow to inaugurate IT
Park, and filed in supreme court in September
Thames-like-Yamuna concept-plan. or Authority of DDA?
it approved on 19.10.05 more land for games. or Prez
and PM? they went gung-ho at akshardham inauguration.
or Parliament? re new rules that allow/require MPs to
skirt Parliament reps on DDA & urban development
Standing Committee and stroll into momma cabinet. etc.
etc.)
my akshardham games village s.4 post of 08.11.05 cc,
recovered, could be re-mail, in which case no
apologies for double-spamming -- am doubly cut up: re
PM that twice partied at tomb being at temple
dedicating and re Prez dedicating temple with oath to
enrich nation by commissioning 1000 Akshardham PURAs
in 5 years under inspirational leadership of His
Divine Holiness... Official, see:
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=13101
nothing to s.4 about such suo motu disclosure, which
also does not facilitate / minimise resort to s.6.
could ask for suo motu disclosures not strictly
compliant with s.4 to be declared spamming!!
also to prevent s.6 enthusiasts from declaring my
counter-spam efforts in support of s.4 spamming ;)
on 08/11/05
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shri BN Singh
> Director [PRE&R]
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Kindly refer to our prior correspondence, at:
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00643.shtml
> wherein I had made, in an e-mail addressed to
> designated PIOs/AAs, certain observations re RTI
> administration in DDA and (alternative) request to
> facilitate my RTI in respect of Authority meeting of
> 19.10.05, which I reiterate. (Despite not being a
> PIO/AA, you had replied to my e-mail and in response
> I
> had reiterated my requests re Authority meeting. I
> have not heard from you since then or from
> designated
> PIOs/AAs).
>
> Meanwhile, there have been further developments on
> matters relating to the Authority meeting of
> 19.10.05
> and, in context of inauguration of Akshardham Temple
> and with reference to your remark about politics and
> DD Act, I seek now clarification of conformity with
> DD
> Act of the expanding Games Village next to
> Akshardham
> Temple, for which additional land acquisition was
> reportedly approved at Authority meeting on
> 19.10.05.
> In this regard, kindly refer also to:
> (1)
> MPISG communication dated 23.10.2004 to request,
> inter-alia, that "responses received to IT Park
> Public
> Notice be considered also "doubts" about the
> proposal
> for locating the Games Village on riverbed,
> requiring
> clearing in spirit of s.11A", (wrt news item,
> 'Manmohan, GoM get cracking with the Games', that
> said, "Supreme Court's refusal to grant stay on
> construction of the Akshardham temple on the Yamuna
> river bed cleared all doubts about the location of
> Games village"), at:
>
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/riverbed/041023
> (2)
> The common observations of the Board / Committee
> appointed by the Authority for Public Notice for
> proposal to change land use for commercial IT Park
> on
> the riverbed on all objections/suggestions (filed in
> Additional Affidavit dated 18.10.2005 on behalf of
> DDA
> in WP 6500/2005, Gita Dewan Verma v/s DMRC & Ors)
> that
> proceed from: "It was informed that the building of
> IT
> Park has already been constructed by DMRC, therefore
> this is a case of de-facto approval of change of
> landuse. The SSB did not appreciate the construction
> of IT Park prior to change of landuse and is of the
> view that such cases of de-facto approval will not
> be
> considered and returned/rejected summarily in the
> future...".
>
> Thanking you and looking forward to your reply,
>
> Yours sincerely
> Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>
> cc: for continuing information
> * PIO/AAs (as per last mail)
> * mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com