Mr AK Jain
Commissioner (Plg), DDA
Dear Mr Jain,
Please see the communications included / referred to
in this message. These pertain to requests under s.4
of RTI Act, 2005. Nevertheless, I am advised to
approach you as Appellate Authority for information
that Dir (MPPR) has told me he does not have custody
of (which seems entirely logical to me).
I would appreciate your response at the earliest since
I wish to make my representation in this matter on the
weekend.
Regards
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc:
Ms Neemo Dhar
Mr PV Mahashabdey
az plan
--- "Dir (PR)" <dirpr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Ms Dewan,
>
> Please refer to your e-mail dated 13th Dec 2005.
>
> In this connection, it is intimated that all
> information pertaining to
> MPD-2021 is to be provided by the Director (MPPR),
> Sh. P.V. Mahashabdey.
> However, in case desired information on the subject
> has not been provided to
> you, you may approach Sh. A.K. Jain, Commissioner
> Planning, who is the
> Appellate Authority for PIO dealing with Master
> Plan.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mrs. Neemo Dhar,
>
> Director (PR)/DDA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <dirpr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <neemo_dhar@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <dirmpd@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: RTI Act (request re reconstitution of
> MPD-2021 Board for
> Enquiry & Hearing)
>
>
> > Ms Neemo Dhar
> > Director (PR&PG), DDA
> >
> > Dear Ms Dhar,
> > This is in continuation of my e-ml of 05.12.05,
> at:
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00708.shtml
> > and subsequent correspondence (included in this
> > message).
> >
> > Director (MPPR) was kind enough to meet me
> yesterday,
> > but is not in custody of information that I:
> > (1) sought, as affected party, under s.4(1)(d)
> > (reasons for decisions relating to reconstitution
> of
> > Board for MPD-2021 Public notice, no.1 in my
> e-mail)
> > (2) requested be published under s.4(1)(b)(iii)
> > (decision making procedure followed by the
> Authority,
> > no.2 in my e-mail)
> > He is in custody of other information I requested
> be
> > published under s.4(1)(b), viz, MP&ZDP Rules,
> 1959,
> > and Gazette notifications dated 15.06.05 and
> 02.12.05
> > relating to the Board and has kindly assured me of
> > website publication of the same and also provided
> me
> > copies of the notifications (the Rules I have).
> >
> > I request again with urgency the remaining
> information
> > (nos. 1 & 2 in my e-mail).
> >
> > Please permit me to clarify that I have no
> adversarial
> > intent and am seeking information to be able to
> make
> > an informed representation about my genuine
> > apprehension that the MPD-2021 Public Notice
> process
> > is vitiated. MCD Commissioner has not bothered to
> > participate in any of the hearings (and the ones,
> > including mine, held on 03.10.05 were invalid for
> lack
> > of quorum on his account). MCD counsellor who
> > participated in hearing on 03.12.05 has made
> curious
> > comments in the press. On 10.12.05 MCD has held
> its
> > own public interaction for its so-called Local
> Area
> > Plans that undermine the DD Act framework in
> > presumption of a proposed USAID-sponsored
> amendment to
> > MCD Act. The other non-DDA member of the Board is
> from
> > TCPO, which has developed the so-called Tool-Kit
> for
> > making in line with USAID-made model municipal law
> > city plans unrelated to statutory plans to access
> > JNNURM funds. Under the circumstances, the Board
> for
> > MPD-2021 Public Notice cannot be considered
> impartial
> > and could well be considered subversive. There are
> > also indications of unwarranted interferences by
> Delhi
> > Government and others well known for anti-DD Act
> > proclivities and advocacy of elements of the
> so-called
> > reform agenda, including by selective use of court
> > orders. It is an open secret that DDA has been
> > prevented by such interferences from carrying out
> > MPD-2021 revision in the manner prescribed. If
> > MPD-2021 Public Notice process is also vitiated
> then
> > its mandate of planned development may well become
> > irretrievable. If you consider it appropriate,
> please
> > communicate my apprehension to Authority Secretary
> > and/or Board Chairman (DDA VC).
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> >
> > cc: for information
> > * Director (MPPR), with thanks for meeting
> > * az plan
> >
> >
> > --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Mr Mahashabdey,
> > >
> > > I have just seen your eml. Mr BN Singh had also
> > > called
> > > earlier in the day about meeting at 3PM on
> Monday. I
> > > have clarified to Mr Singh that I have not
> resorted
> > > to
> > > s.6 of RTI Act and need no general
> clarification. I
> > > await responses on other matters that I have
> raised
> > > in
> > > perspective of s.4 and expect a meeting at this
> > > stage
> > > to dispose off my request of 15.12.05 (in which
> I
> > > have
> > > stated my reasons for urgency). With reference
> to
> > > your
> > > response apropos my Pt.1 (s.4(1)d) therein I
> have
> > > requested Mr Singh to examine Pt.2-4 (s.4(1)b)
> in
> > > this
> > > light and revert to me.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, I had requested someone to deposit
> > > requisite fee on my behalf. I understand that
> > > receiving office in Vasant Kunj had no separate
> > > instructions for s.4(1)(d) and could only issue
> > > receipt against s.6 form and I have now form
> > > No.000487
> > > and receipt No.156874 for Rs.10/- only. I will
> come
> > > to
> > > your office on Monday morning with these for
> advice
> > > on
> > > payment of requisite fees to be able to complete
> > > that
> > > formality before receiving office closes and
> about
> > > further procedure.
> > >
> > > With regards
> > > Gita Dewan Verma
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- dirmpd@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > To,
> > > > Ms Gita Dewan Verma,Planner
> > > >
> > > > This is to refer to your mail dtd. December 5,
> > > 2005,
> > > > regarding reconstiturion of Borad of Enquiry
> and
> > > > Hearing for MPD-2021, forwarded by Dir (PR) to
> > > this
> > > > office. You are requested to deposit the
> requisite
> > > > fees in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > Your e-mails regularly received by all the 40
> PIOs
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Commissioner (Plg), DDA
Dear Mr Jain,
Please see the communications included / referred to
in this message. These pertain to requests under s.4
of RTI Act, 2005. Nevertheless, I am advised to
approach you as Appellate Authority for information
that Dir (MPPR) has told me he does not have custody
of (which seems entirely logical to me).
I would appreciate your response at the earliest since
I wish to make my representation in this matter on the
weekend.
Regards
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc:
Ms Neemo Dhar
Mr PV Mahashabdey
az plan
--- "Dir (PR)" <dirpr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Ms Dewan,
>
> Please refer to your e-mail dated 13th Dec 2005.
>
> In this connection, it is intimated that all
> information pertaining to
> MPD-2021 is to be provided by the Director (MPPR),
> Sh. P.V. Mahashabdey.
> However, in case desired information on the subject
> has not been provided to
> you, you may approach Sh. A.K. Jain, Commissioner
> Planning, who is the
> Appellate Authority for PIO dealing with Master
> Plan.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mrs. Neemo Dhar,
>
> Director (PR)/DDA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <dirpr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <neemo_dhar@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <dirmpd@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: RTI Act (request re reconstitution of
> MPD-2021 Board for
> Enquiry & Hearing)
>
>
> > Ms Neemo Dhar
> > Director (PR&PG), DDA
> >
> > Dear Ms Dhar,
> > This is in continuation of my e-ml of 05.12.05,
> at:
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00708.shtml
> > and subsequent correspondence (included in this
> > message).
> >
> > Director (MPPR) was kind enough to meet me
> yesterday,
> > but is not in custody of information that I:
> > (1) sought, as affected party, under s.4(1)(d)
> > (reasons for decisions relating to reconstitution
> of
> > Board for MPD-2021 Public notice, no.1 in my
> e-mail)
> > (2) requested be published under s.4(1)(b)(iii)
> > (decision making procedure followed by the
> Authority,
> > no.2 in my e-mail)
> > He is in custody of other information I requested
> be
> > published under s.4(1)(b), viz, MP&ZDP Rules,
> 1959,
> > and Gazette notifications dated 15.06.05 and
> 02.12.05
> > relating to the Board and has kindly assured me of
> > website publication of the same and also provided
> me
> > copies of the notifications (the Rules I have).
> >
> > I request again with urgency the remaining
> information
> > (nos. 1 & 2 in my e-mail).
> >
> > Please permit me to clarify that I have no
> adversarial
> > intent and am seeking information to be able to
> make
> > an informed representation about my genuine
> > apprehension that the MPD-2021 Public Notice
> process
> > is vitiated. MCD Commissioner has not bothered to
> > participate in any of the hearings (and the ones,
> > including mine, held on 03.10.05 were invalid for
> lack
> > of quorum on his account). MCD counsellor who
> > participated in hearing on 03.12.05 has made
> curious
> > comments in the press. On 10.12.05 MCD has held
> its
> > own public interaction for its so-called Local
> Area
> > Plans that undermine the DD Act framework in
> > presumption of a proposed USAID-sponsored
> amendment to
> > MCD Act. The other non-DDA member of the Board is
> from
> > TCPO, which has developed the so-called Tool-Kit
> for
> > making in line with USAID-made model municipal law
> > city plans unrelated to statutory plans to access
> > JNNURM funds. Under the circumstances, the Board
> for
> > MPD-2021 Public Notice cannot be considered
> impartial
> > and could well be considered subversive. There are
> > also indications of unwarranted interferences by
> Delhi
> > Government and others well known for anti-DD Act
> > proclivities and advocacy of elements of the
> so-called
> > reform agenda, including by selective use of court
> > orders. It is an open secret that DDA has been
> > prevented by such interferences from carrying out
> > MPD-2021 revision in the manner prescribed. If
> > MPD-2021 Public Notice process is also vitiated
> then
> > its mandate of planned development may well become
> > irretrievable. If you consider it appropriate,
> please
> > communicate my apprehension to Authority Secretary
> > and/or Board Chairman (DDA VC).
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> >
> > cc: for information
> > * Director (MPPR), with thanks for meeting
> > * az plan
> >
> >
> > --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Mr Mahashabdey,
> > >
> > > I have just seen your eml. Mr BN Singh had also
> > > called
> > > earlier in the day about meeting at 3PM on
> Monday. I
> > > have clarified to Mr Singh that I have not
> resorted
> > > to
> > > s.6 of RTI Act and need no general
> clarification. I
> > > await responses on other matters that I have
> raised
> > > in
> > > perspective of s.4 and expect a meeting at this
> > > stage
> > > to dispose off my request of 15.12.05 (in which
> I
> > > have
> > > stated my reasons for urgency). With reference
> to
> > > your
> > > response apropos my Pt.1 (s.4(1)d) therein I
> have
> > > requested Mr Singh to examine Pt.2-4 (s.4(1)b)
> in
> > > this
> > > light and revert to me.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, I had requested someone to deposit
> > > requisite fee on my behalf. I understand that
> > > receiving office in Vasant Kunj had no separate
> > > instructions for s.4(1)(d) and could only issue
> > > receipt against s.6 form and I have now form
> > > No.000487
> > > and receipt No.156874 for Rs.10/- only. I will
> come
> > > to
> > > your office on Monday morning with these for
> advice
> > > on
> > > payment of requisite fees to be able to complete
> > > that
> > > formality before receiving office closes and
> about
> > > further procedure.
> > >
> > > With regards
> > > Gita Dewan Verma
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- dirmpd@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > To,
> > > > Ms Gita Dewan Verma,Planner
> > > >
> > > > This is to refer to your mail dtd. December 5,
> > > 2005,
> > > > regarding reconstiturion of Borad of Enquiry
> and
> > > > Hearing for MPD-2021, forwarded by Dir (PR) to
> > > this
> > > > office. You are requested to deposit the
> requisite
> > > > fees in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > Your e-mails regularly received by all the 40
> PIOs
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com