*Open letter*
Director (IA), MoEF
Dear Sir,
Please refer to my letter of 25.09.2005 (request for
EIA status of projects, etc, wrt prior requests for
over a year, etc) and to Delhi Pollution Control
Committee (DPCC) Public Notice of 28.11.2005 (Times of
India, p.13) for public hearing for MoEF clearance as
per EIA notification of 07.07.2004 for Vasant Kunj
Malls.
I request MoEF to direct DPCC to withdraw this Public
Notice since (as spelled out further) MoEF might not
wish to consider this case:
1. at all (as it is sub-judice, etc)
2. under EIA notification (as DPCC clearance was
required earlier)
3. except in appeal (as work is on for a year with
Delhi Govt clearances)
4. without assuring itself of legality/propriety of
procedures/timing
Alternatively, I request MoEF to constitute an Expert
Committee as per Schedule III and include me in it -
as Land Use Planning expert (1(v)) and (planner)
representative of persons concerned (enough to be
engaging since 2000 by constitutional processes) with
environmental issues (pertaining to the site) (1(xi))
- to assist in assessing the applications / public
hearing outcome.
Please let me know at the earliest if MoEF can
accommodate my request.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc:
wrt requests to MoEF re NBSAP, NEP & EIA (esp detailed
reference to the site / scheme in original note), at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00695.shtml
wrt requests to DDA re starred question in Parliament
about VK Malls, at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00701.shtml
-------------------------
Reasons for requesting MoEF to direct DPCC to withdraw
its Public Notice for MoEF clearance for VK Malls
1. MoEF might not wish to consider this case at all
since it is sub-judice and also subject of ongoing
Public Notice proceedings, as under:
(a) Delhi High Court is hearing WP 8523/2003 for
protection of rights of old communities against
unplanned projects (including, besides auction for
Malls, Biodiversity Park next to them, Delhi Govt
hospital and Mandi, etc) in which Delhi Govt has not
filed reply (and for the other impugned projects -
which, unlike the Malls, do not involve third party
interests, involve ridge / green belt violations and
illegal ground water withdrawal, etc - DPCC had not
issued public notices for MoEF clearances).
(b) A Board of Enquiry & Hearing (with Delhi Govt
officials as special invitees) is hearing responses
filed to Public Notice for draft Master Plan 2021.
Responses filed include ones related to the Malls,
etc. (Similar responses to other public notices for
land use change, eg, for commercial complex in a
historic water body in the area and for tenements in a
district park in the same zone, also await disposal)
2. MoEF might not wish to consider this case under
notification of 07.07.2004 since clearance was
required earlier from DPCC, as under:
(a) Supreme Court order dated 19.08.1997 in SLP
8960/1997 (Unison Hotels Ltd v/s DDA & Ors),
clarifying that order dated 13.09.1996 quashing a
proposal on 223 Ha did not apply to remaining 92 Ha
(including 19 Ha site of Malls) in the 315 Ha parcel
of land, directed that "the petitioner and all others
similarly situated outside the 223 ha of the area of
the proposal of the DDA are required to abide by all
the conditions of clearances from the environmental
authorities...".
(b) DDA press advertisement of 12.12.2003 clarified
for intending investors: "...the lessee / auction
purchaser would be required to obtain necessary
clearance for the project from the Environment
Pollution (Prevention and Control) authority and / or
Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) before
submitting the plans for sanction to the Building
Department of the DDA. In other words this is one of
the clearances the lessee is required to obtain in
accordance with Condition No.13 of Chapter-I and
Clause 3.10 of the Terms & Conditions of the Auction
Document (Chapter-III)".
(c) The 19 Ha site was auctioned on 15.12.2003 for
about 1100 cr and Terms & Conditions were upheld in
Supreme Court order of 08.03.2004 (in WP 564/2003
(Santosh Bhartiya v/s DDA), challenging the auction on
grounds of non-compliance of order dated 19.08.1997 by
DDA), saying: "We are satisfied that the proposed Mall
is on the area measuring 92 hectares, which has
already been excluded by the order of this court on
19th August, 1997. In that view of the matter, we do
not find any merit in this petition. It is,
accordingly, dismissed...".
(d) Central Empowered Committee also reiterated order
of 19.08.1997 in its report of 30.07.2004 on
Application No.331 regarding "preservation of
environment and biodiversity" in the area, by Vikram
Soni of a group mentioned also in order of 13.09.1996,
source of order of 19.08.1997. On 25.03.2004 CEC
co-opted as special invitee Shekhar Singh who visited
the site on 10.04.2004 with the applicant and
submitted his report on 07.07.2004, recommending
declaring the area (except area excepted by order of
19.08.1997 and some other area) forest, etc. The
applicant and respondents, including Delhi Govt and
MoEF, were heard on 08 & 26.07.2004 and CEC report
does not note any reference by them to Malls or EIA
notification.
3. MoEF might not wish to consider this case except in
some sort of appeal since work has been going on for
over a year with Delhi Govt clearances, as under:
(a) Delhi Jal Board gave clearance to the auction that
it could have prevented but whose Auction document
assured water availability by September 2004.
(b) Delhi Govt did not mention before CEC any problem
with environmental clearance as per order of
19.08.1997 / auction Terms & Conditions.
(c) Work on Malls started immediately after CEC
proceedings, presumably with environmental clearance
pre-required for building permit since neither Delhi
Govt nor DDA mentioned any problem on this count in WP
8523/2003 (in which notice was issued on 22.09.2004)
(d) DPCC Member Secretary, who has now issued Public
Notice, was in sub-group on Environment and Pollution
for draft MPD-2021, cleared in January 2005 for
issuing Public Notice inviting objections /
suggestions, that clearly indicates the Malls with no
mention of any pending environmental clearance.
(e) On 13.03.2005 DPCC issued Public Notice to
proponents of projects in purview of notification of
07.07.2004 to submit documents within 21 days, failing
which they would be "liable for action", but work on
Malls was not stopped.
4. MoEF might not wish to consider this case without
assuring itself of legality/propriety of
procedures/timing of DPCC initiative, as under:
(a) DPCC public notice for public hearing does not
mention date, time and place of public hearing, as
required by the prescribed Procedure for Public
Hearing (Schedule IV, clause-2(i)). Also, it is for
part project (viz, 4 plots for Malls - for which it
curiously mentions 5 parties - that occupy 19 Ha in a
Malls-and-Park scheme on most of a 315 Ha parcel of
prime land)
(b) DPCC public notice specifies in inclusions "local
authority, association of persons likely to be
affected by the projects and environmental groups".
However:
* Reference to local authority is unwarranted because
clause-2(ii) (explanation d) mentions them in context
of "proposed" projects. The Malls are under
construction and 7 authorities are respondents in WP
8523/2003 that was filed before the auction. DDA has
filed two counter-affidavits referring to the Malls
and order of 19.08.1997. MCD and DMRC have
categorically denied any role in the area / petition.
Others, including Delhi Government, have not filed
reply. It is hardly open to local authorities to
participate in a DPCC public hearing about the Malls.
* Reference to associations is not qualified with
"whether incorporated or not" (explanation c). This is
likely to discourage all but RWAs with whom the term
association has become synonymous under Delhi Govt
Bhagidari, though RWAs do not have the mandate to
represent their members on such issues and their
office bearers rarely consult others before taking or
changing stands on their behalf. At present some RWAs
in the area and some NGOs / Vikram Soni are jointly
advocating in purported protest against the Malls the
viewpoint repeatedly settled in favour of the Malls.
* Reference to environmental groups is not qualified
with "located at the project site/sites of
displacement" (clause-2(ii)). In a striking
coincidence, DPCC public notice has been issued in the
same fortnight that premier NGOs supported by MPs
dramatically issued death-certificate to MoEF, local
RWAs/NGOs secured support of Medha Patkar for their
"movement", and a starred question on the Malls was
reportedly fielded in Parliament. The
death-certificate event relied on open-letters since
mid 2004 signed by premier NGOs, including those of
Medha Patkar and Shekhar Singh, in support of their
purportedly participatory NBSAP and focussed on EIA
issues (with no reference to VK Malls in their public
hearing of previous day, although Shekhar Singh was a
panellist).
(c) DPCC public notice includes persons affected by
the project in those affected by the clearance
("persons likely to be affected by the grant of
environmental clearance which shall include" local
authority, associations and environmental groups) even
as clause-2(ii) makes a distinction by defining the
former in explanations b,c,d and the latter in
explanation a. The obfuscation is significant.
Processing of this clearance, while not processing
clearance of patently illegal government projects
started in the area later without open
auctions/tenders, has implications for quality in
private sector participation that affect the building
industry and professions in ways that project affected
persons may not be able to objectively appreciate and
RWA/NGO "movements" by networks given to adversarial
advocacy and para-professionalism are unlikely to even
want to appreciate.
(d) Two striking omissions deepen the apprehension
that the DPCC public notice is not for public hearing
but for RWA/NGO "movement" event (that could well be
anti-MoEF):
* There is no mention of "bona fide residents"
(clause-2(ii)) and it is unclear why those content to
be just that and not inclined to RWA/NGO "movement"
should bother to reply to a Delhi Govt public notice
when Delhi Govt has not bothered to reply even on
court notice to their engagements since 2000
(summarised in an Annexure in WP 8523/2003).
* There is no mention of "displacement" (clause-2(ii))
although over a thousand families in old communities
in Lalkhet were evicted from near the Malls for the
so-called Aravali Biodiversity Park usurping notified
residential land on 29.07.2004 (immediately after
conclusion of CEC proceedings and just before
commencement of work on the Malls, 3 weeks after EIA
notification of 07.07.2004) - without any hearing.
(I was witness to the two-month long operation to
evict citizens from Lalkhet and party to their
two-month long requests for hearing that went unheard.
Related court matters and their own responses on
MPD-2021 public notice await disposal. I am a planner
and live in Vasant Kunj and had objected to the
auction when it was reportedly only planned and, yet,
I do believe I have no right to be heard as project
affected person before the bona fide residents
displaced from the Park portion of the Malls and Park
scheme have been heard to their satisfaction. I also
believe most if not all others have less than the no
right that I have and that I have sufficient basis to
request that either their hearing be prevented or I be
heard on its outcome).
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Director (IA), MoEF
Dear Sir,
Please refer to my letter of 25.09.2005 (request for
EIA status of projects, etc, wrt prior requests for
over a year, etc) and to Delhi Pollution Control
Committee (DPCC) Public Notice of 28.11.2005 (Times of
India, p.13) for public hearing for MoEF clearance as
per EIA notification of 07.07.2004 for Vasant Kunj
Malls.
I request MoEF to direct DPCC to withdraw this Public
Notice since (as spelled out further) MoEF might not
wish to consider this case:
1. at all (as it is sub-judice, etc)
2. under EIA notification (as DPCC clearance was
required earlier)
3. except in appeal (as work is on for a year with
Delhi Govt clearances)
4. without assuring itself of legality/propriety of
procedures/timing
Alternatively, I request MoEF to constitute an Expert
Committee as per Schedule III and include me in it -
as Land Use Planning expert (1(v)) and (planner)
representative of persons concerned (enough to be
engaging since 2000 by constitutional processes) with
environmental issues (pertaining to the site) (1(xi))
- to assist in assessing the applications / public
hearing outcome.
Please let me know at the earliest if MoEF can
accommodate my request.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc:
wrt requests to MoEF re NBSAP, NEP & EIA (esp detailed
reference to the site / scheme in original note), at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00695.shtml
wrt requests to DDA re starred question in Parliament
about VK Malls, at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00701.shtml
-------------------------
Reasons for requesting MoEF to direct DPCC to withdraw
its Public Notice for MoEF clearance for VK Malls
1. MoEF might not wish to consider this case at all
since it is sub-judice and also subject of ongoing
Public Notice proceedings, as under:
(a) Delhi High Court is hearing WP 8523/2003 for
protection of rights of old communities against
unplanned projects (including, besides auction for
Malls, Biodiversity Park next to them, Delhi Govt
hospital and Mandi, etc) in which Delhi Govt has not
filed reply (and for the other impugned projects -
which, unlike the Malls, do not involve third party
interests, involve ridge / green belt violations and
illegal ground water withdrawal, etc - DPCC had not
issued public notices for MoEF clearances).
(b) A Board of Enquiry & Hearing (with Delhi Govt
officials as special invitees) is hearing responses
filed to Public Notice for draft Master Plan 2021.
Responses filed include ones related to the Malls,
etc. (Similar responses to other public notices for
land use change, eg, for commercial complex in a
historic water body in the area and for tenements in a
district park in the same zone, also await disposal)
2. MoEF might not wish to consider this case under
notification of 07.07.2004 since clearance was
required earlier from DPCC, as under:
(a) Supreme Court order dated 19.08.1997 in SLP
8960/1997 (Unison Hotels Ltd v/s DDA & Ors),
clarifying that order dated 13.09.1996 quashing a
proposal on 223 Ha did not apply to remaining 92 Ha
(including 19 Ha site of Malls) in the 315 Ha parcel
of land, directed that "the petitioner and all others
similarly situated outside the 223 ha of the area of
the proposal of the DDA are required to abide by all
the conditions of clearances from the environmental
authorities...".
(b) DDA press advertisement of 12.12.2003 clarified
for intending investors: "...the lessee / auction
purchaser would be required to obtain necessary
clearance for the project from the Environment
Pollution (Prevention and Control) authority and / or
Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) before
submitting the plans for sanction to the Building
Department of the DDA. In other words this is one of
the clearances the lessee is required to obtain in
accordance with Condition No.13 of Chapter-I and
Clause 3.10 of the Terms & Conditions of the Auction
Document (Chapter-III)".
(c) The 19 Ha site was auctioned on 15.12.2003 for
about 1100 cr and Terms & Conditions were upheld in
Supreme Court order of 08.03.2004 (in WP 564/2003
(Santosh Bhartiya v/s DDA), challenging the auction on
grounds of non-compliance of order dated 19.08.1997 by
DDA), saying: "We are satisfied that the proposed Mall
is on the area measuring 92 hectares, which has
already been excluded by the order of this court on
19th August, 1997. In that view of the matter, we do
not find any merit in this petition. It is,
accordingly, dismissed...".
(d) Central Empowered Committee also reiterated order
of 19.08.1997 in its report of 30.07.2004 on
Application No.331 regarding "preservation of
environment and biodiversity" in the area, by Vikram
Soni of a group mentioned also in order of 13.09.1996,
source of order of 19.08.1997. On 25.03.2004 CEC
co-opted as special invitee Shekhar Singh who visited
the site on 10.04.2004 with the applicant and
submitted his report on 07.07.2004, recommending
declaring the area (except area excepted by order of
19.08.1997 and some other area) forest, etc. The
applicant and respondents, including Delhi Govt and
MoEF, were heard on 08 & 26.07.2004 and CEC report
does not note any reference by them to Malls or EIA
notification.
3. MoEF might not wish to consider this case except in
some sort of appeal since work has been going on for
over a year with Delhi Govt clearances, as under:
(a) Delhi Jal Board gave clearance to the auction that
it could have prevented but whose Auction document
assured water availability by September 2004.
(b) Delhi Govt did not mention before CEC any problem
with environmental clearance as per order of
19.08.1997 / auction Terms & Conditions.
(c) Work on Malls started immediately after CEC
proceedings, presumably with environmental clearance
pre-required for building permit since neither Delhi
Govt nor DDA mentioned any problem on this count in WP
8523/2003 (in which notice was issued on 22.09.2004)
(d) DPCC Member Secretary, who has now issued Public
Notice, was in sub-group on Environment and Pollution
for draft MPD-2021, cleared in January 2005 for
issuing Public Notice inviting objections /
suggestions, that clearly indicates the Malls with no
mention of any pending environmental clearance.
(e) On 13.03.2005 DPCC issued Public Notice to
proponents of projects in purview of notification of
07.07.2004 to submit documents within 21 days, failing
which they would be "liable for action", but work on
Malls was not stopped.
4. MoEF might not wish to consider this case without
assuring itself of legality/propriety of
procedures/timing of DPCC initiative, as under:
(a) DPCC public notice for public hearing does not
mention date, time and place of public hearing, as
required by the prescribed Procedure for Public
Hearing (Schedule IV, clause-2(i)). Also, it is for
part project (viz, 4 plots for Malls - for which it
curiously mentions 5 parties - that occupy 19 Ha in a
Malls-and-Park scheme on most of a 315 Ha parcel of
prime land)
(b) DPCC public notice specifies in inclusions "local
authority, association of persons likely to be
affected by the projects and environmental groups".
However:
* Reference to local authority is unwarranted because
clause-2(ii) (explanation d) mentions them in context
of "proposed" projects. The Malls are under
construction and 7 authorities are respondents in WP
8523/2003 that was filed before the auction. DDA has
filed two counter-affidavits referring to the Malls
and order of 19.08.1997. MCD and DMRC have
categorically denied any role in the area / petition.
Others, including Delhi Government, have not filed
reply. It is hardly open to local authorities to
participate in a DPCC public hearing about the Malls.
* Reference to associations is not qualified with
"whether incorporated or not" (explanation c). This is
likely to discourage all but RWAs with whom the term
association has become synonymous under Delhi Govt
Bhagidari, though RWAs do not have the mandate to
represent their members on such issues and their
office bearers rarely consult others before taking or
changing stands on their behalf. At present some RWAs
in the area and some NGOs / Vikram Soni are jointly
advocating in purported protest against the Malls the
viewpoint repeatedly settled in favour of the Malls.
* Reference to environmental groups is not qualified
with "located at the project site/sites of
displacement" (clause-2(ii)). In a striking
coincidence, DPCC public notice has been issued in the
same fortnight that premier NGOs supported by MPs
dramatically issued death-certificate to MoEF, local
RWAs/NGOs secured support of Medha Patkar for their
"movement", and a starred question on the Malls was
reportedly fielded in Parliament. The
death-certificate event relied on open-letters since
mid 2004 signed by premier NGOs, including those of
Medha Patkar and Shekhar Singh, in support of their
purportedly participatory NBSAP and focussed on EIA
issues (with no reference to VK Malls in their public
hearing of previous day, although Shekhar Singh was a
panellist).
(c) DPCC public notice includes persons affected by
the project in those affected by the clearance
("persons likely to be affected by the grant of
environmental clearance which shall include" local
authority, associations and environmental groups) even
as clause-2(ii) makes a distinction by defining the
former in explanations b,c,d and the latter in
explanation a. The obfuscation is significant.
Processing of this clearance, while not processing
clearance of patently illegal government projects
started in the area later without open
auctions/tenders, has implications for quality in
private sector participation that affect the building
industry and professions in ways that project affected
persons may not be able to objectively appreciate and
RWA/NGO "movements" by networks given to adversarial
advocacy and para-professionalism are unlikely to even
want to appreciate.
(d) Two striking omissions deepen the apprehension
that the DPCC public notice is not for public hearing
but for RWA/NGO "movement" event (that could well be
anti-MoEF):
* There is no mention of "bona fide residents"
(clause-2(ii)) and it is unclear why those content to
be just that and not inclined to RWA/NGO "movement"
should bother to reply to a Delhi Govt public notice
when Delhi Govt has not bothered to reply even on
court notice to their engagements since 2000
(summarised in an Annexure in WP 8523/2003).
* There is no mention of "displacement" (clause-2(ii))
although over a thousand families in old communities
in Lalkhet were evicted from near the Malls for the
so-called Aravali Biodiversity Park usurping notified
residential land on 29.07.2004 (immediately after
conclusion of CEC proceedings and just before
commencement of work on the Malls, 3 weeks after EIA
notification of 07.07.2004) - without any hearing.
(I was witness to the two-month long operation to
evict citizens from Lalkhet and party to their
two-month long requests for hearing that went unheard.
Related court matters and their own responses on
MPD-2021 public notice await disposal. I am a planner
and live in Vasant Kunj and had objected to the
auction when it was reportedly only planned and, yet,
I do believe I have no right to be heard as project
affected person before the bona fide residents
displaced from the Park portion of the Malls and Park
scheme have been heard to their satisfaction. I also
believe most if not all others have less than the no
right that I have and that I have sufficient basis to
request that either their hearing be prevented or I be
heard on its outcome).
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com