Ms Neemo Dhar
Director (P.R./P.G.), DDA
Dear Ms Dhar,
Thank you for your e-mail of 10.11.05 (included in
this reply). Mine of 26.10.05, of 27.10.04 (including
Mr BN Singh's reply of 26.10.05) and 08.11.05 are at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00642.shtml
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00643.shtml
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00670.shtml
I apologise for the way I write that led you to think
that issues raised by me pertain to MPD-2021 and to
forward them to Director (MPPR). Mr Mahasabdhey has
appositely not responded since the issues do not
pertain to draft MPD-2021. Permit me to clarify that
my request of 26.10.05 pertained to implementation of
RTI Act in DDA or (in the alternative) assistance
under s.5(3), due to insufficient s.4 information on
DDA website, for exercising my s.6 RTI in respect of
doubts raised in my letter to LG about Authority
meeting of 19.10.05. The former was promptly rejected
and in my reply of 27.10.05 I reiterated the latter
that pertains, like my request of 08.11.05 for
clarification of conformity with DD Act of land
acquisition for Games Village, to Authority meeting of
19.10.05, apropos which you say you are PIO.
You have kindly clarified that Authority staff at HoD
level prepares agenda items and implements decisions
and maintains records. However, I am not able to
frame, with that assistance, a s.6 request to ask, in
effect, what prevented the Authority from rejecting
agenda items prepared by its staff without basis in
the Master Plan or regard to pending court matters and
MPD-2021 Public Notice or from taking stock of
functioning of its Board of Enquiry & Hearing for
MPD-2021 Public Notice in its meeting of 19.10.05. s.4
information gaps on DDA website have also not been
filled and I have also not heard in response to my
s.41(3) applications to LG (in the letter included in
my e-mail of 26.10.05).
I am writing now to request you, in view of the
following news of 21.11.05, to kindly publish on DDA
website details of Authority meeting of 19.10.05 and
of functioning of Board of Enquiry & Hearing for
MPD-2021 Public Notice:
1.
ToI (p.7) has reported implementation of Authority
approval of acquisition for Games Village (on heels of
reports of a 33000 cr scheme for riverbed, including
Games Village, that Mr Sandeep Dikshit has made and
presented to Delhi Cabinet)
2.
PMO has announced launch of 1 lakh crore Urban Renewal
Mission, an important objective of which pertains to
*public participation and disclosure*, as per press
release at:
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=13437
Delhi is likely to benefit from this Fund as a
front-runner in the urban reforms to which it is
linked. However, efforts of Delhi Government via
Bhagidari, etc, and of MCD via NGO-partnerships and
consultations for the Municipal Corporation
(Amendment) Bill, 2005 (for bye-law reform, etc) in
this direction require aligning with the statutory DD
Act regime for Constitutional validity. The Authority
of the DDA, being an authority of Central government,
has now the responsibility of ensuring that this Fund
is not perceived as incentive for extra-constitutional
pursuits and the *public participation and disclosure*
objective calls for utmost care in respect of MPD-2021
Public Notice and RTI Act implementation. The
riverbed, of course, calls for utmost care in any
case.
I hope you will view my requests in this broader
perspective. For any clarification, I remain at DDA's
disposal.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for info
Mr P V Mahasabdhey (wrt Ms Dhar's reply)
Mr R K Vats (wrt quote in ToI report)
Mr BN Singh (wrt previous mails)
cc: with request to point out any errors
Dir (TYA), Dir (AP-I), Dir (AP-II) (wrt MPD)
Mr Rajeev Malhotra, CRP NCRPB (wrt NCRP)
cc: azPlan
--- Neemo Dhar <neemo_dhar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Madam,
>
> Your e-mail dated 26-10-2005 addressed to all PIOs
> has been seen. The
> jurisdiction of various PIOs has been given
> department wise along with the
> names of the PIOs.
>
> Undersigned is the PIO for the work relating to the
> meetings of the
> Authority, Advisory Council etc. and the concerned
> heads of departments who
> prepare the agenda items are responsible for acting
> upon the
> decisions/recommendations of the Authority/Advisory
> Council. It is the
> concerned heads of departments who remain custodians
> of all such records and
> actions thereon. However, the issues raised by you
> pertain to MPD-2021 and
> as such have been forwarded to Mr. P.V. Mahasabdey,
> Director (MPPR) who is
> the PIO for such matters.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Neemo Dhar,
>
> Diector (P.R./P.G.), DDA
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Director (P.R./P.G.), DDA
Dear Ms Dhar,
Thank you for your e-mail of 10.11.05 (included in
this reply). Mine of 26.10.05, of 27.10.04 (including
Mr BN Singh's reply of 26.10.05) and 08.11.05 are at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00642.shtml
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00643.shtml
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00670.shtml
I apologise for the way I write that led you to think
that issues raised by me pertain to MPD-2021 and to
forward them to Director (MPPR). Mr Mahasabdhey has
appositely not responded since the issues do not
pertain to draft MPD-2021. Permit me to clarify that
my request of 26.10.05 pertained to implementation of
RTI Act in DDA or (in the alternative) assistance
under s.5(3), due to insufficient s.4 information on
DDA website, for exercising my s.6 RTI in respect of
doubts raised in my letter to LG about Authority
meeting of 19.10.05. The former was promptly rejected
and in my reply of 27.10.05 I reiterated the latter
that pertains, like my request of 08.11.05 for
clarification of conformity with DD Act of land
acquisition for Games Village, to Authority meeting of
19.10.05, apropos which you say you are PIO.
You have kindly clarified that Authority staff at HoD
level prepares agenda items and implements decisions
and maintains records. However, I am not able to
frame, with that assistance, a s.6 request to ask, in
effect, what prevented the Authority from rejecting
agenda items prepared by its staff without basis in
the Master Plan or regard to pending court matters and
MPD-2021 Public Notice or from taking stock of
functioning of its Board of Enquiry & Hearing for
MPD-2021 Public Notice in its meeting of 19.10.05. s.4
information gaps on DDA website have also not been
filled and I have also not heard in response to my
s.41(3) applications to LG (in the letter included in
my e-mail of 26.10.05).
I am writing now to request you, in view of the
following news of 21.11.05, to kindly publish on DDA
website details of Authority meeting of 19.10.05 and
of functioning of Board of Enquiry & Hearing for
MPD-2021 Public Notice:
1.
ToI (p.7) has reported implementation of Authority
approval of acquisition for Games Village (on heels of
reports of a 33000 cr scheme for riverbed, including
Games Village, that Mr Sandeep Dikshit has made and
presented to Delhi Cabinet)
2.
PMO has announced launch of 1 lakh crore Urban Renewal
Mission, an important objective of which pertains to
*public participation and disclosure*, as per press
release at:
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=13437
Delhi is likely to benefit from this Fund as a
front-runner in the urban reforms to which it is
linked. However, efforts of Delhi Government via
Bhagidari, etc, and of MCD via NGO-partnerships and
consultations for the Municipal Corporation
(Amendment) Bill, 2005 (for bye-law reform, etc) in
this direction require aligning with the statutory DD
Act regime for Constitutional validity. The Authority
of the DDA, being an authority of Central government,
has now the responsibility of ensuring that this Fund
is not perceived as incentive for extra-constitutional
pursuits and the *public participation and disclosure*
objective calls for utmost care in respect of MPD-2021
Public Notice and RTI Act implementation. The
riverbed, of course, calls for utmost care in any
case.
I hope you will view my requests in this broader
perspective. For any clarification, I remain at DDA's
disposal.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for info
Mr P V Mahasabdhey (wrt Ms Dhar's reply)
Mr R K Vats (wrt quote in ToI report)
Mr BN Singh (wrt previous mails)
cc: with request to point out any errors
Dir (TYA), Dir (AP-I), Dir (AP-II) (wrt MPD)
Mr Rajeev Malhotra, CRP NCRPB (wrt NCRP)
cc: azPlan
--- Neemo Dhar <neemo_dhar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Madam,
>
> Your e-mail dated 26-10-2005 addressed to all PIOs
> has been seen. The
> jurisdiction of various PIOs has been given
> department wise along with the
> names of the PIOs.
>
> Undersigned is the PIO for the work relating to the
> meetings of the
> Authority, Advisory Council etc. and the concerned
> heads of departments who
> prepare the agenda items are responsible for acting
> upon the
> decisions/recommendations of the Authority/Advisory
> Council. It is the
> concerned heads of departments who remain custodians
> of all such records and
> actions thereon. However, the issues raised by you
> pertain to MPD-2021 and
> as such have been forwarded to Mr. P.V. Mahasabdey,
> Director (MPPR) who is
> the PIO for such matters.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Neemo Dhar,
>
> Diector (P.R./P.G.), DDA
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com