Chief Secretary, GNCTD
Dear Mr Regunathan,
Please refer to news item titled 'Delhi Govt. sitting
on new building bye-law file' in The Hindu dated
19.12.05. This says: "At a high level meeting convened
by the Chief Secretary recently... Mr. Regunathan
sought to know from Principal Secretary (Health)
Rakesh Mehta, who monitored the whole exercise as
Municipal Commissioner... as to who ordered framing of
the new building byelaws. After being informed that it
was at the instance of the previous
Lieutenant-Governor Vijai Kapoor that this exercise
was carried out, Mr. Regunathan asked the officials to
produce a letter to support the claim. However, Mr.
Mehta pointed out that such orders were not issued in
writing. The officials present at the meeting informed
that the present byelaws were anarchic in nature and
if Inspector Raj and redtapism was to end and if at
all the Delhi Government was interested in putting an
end to illegal and unauthorised constructions, the new
bye-laws that had the financial as well as
administrative backing of USAID, which had sanctioned
Rs. 1 crore for this project, had to be put in place
as soon as possible. The meeting was also informed
that the Delhi Cabinet had already approved it... It
was pointed out that matter had to be sent to the
Central Government as soon as possible so that the
necessary amendments to the law were made at the
earliest". This item is available on the web-edition
of The Hindu at:
http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/19/stories/2005121912420400.htm
And please refer to my letter of 17.11.2005 to
JS(UT)-MoHA with copies to yourself, Commissioner-MCD
and JS(D&L)-MoUD, in which I have pointed out that
so-called new-building-byelaws being pursued since
2003 (and so-called Local-Area-Plans, such as one for
which so-called public-interaction with so-called RWA
was held in Vasant Vihar on 10.12.05) proceed from
Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2005,
that is USAID-sponsored and, in my view, in
contravention of Constitutional provisions for
Statehood and Decentralisation and the (central) Delhi
Development Act / Master Plan framework (ie,
tantamount to collusion by Delhi Govt / MCD with
foreign agency to subvert the authority of Government
of India) and said: "If required I can send a
clause-by-clause list of description of changes
proposed by this scurrilous Bill for a self-speaking
account of the true import of its content... If
required I could send a long list of recent schemes,
etc, of MCD / Delhi Government that are unmindful of
the statutory Delhi Master Plan framework for
equitable and efficient planned development... I do
believe that two-year long and continuing pursuit of a
patently unconstitutional USAID-sponsored Bill is
proof that governance in Delhi has slipped out of the
framework of the Constitution. An intuitive sense of
justice impels me to seek clarification of scope and
procedure in respect of s.490 of MCD Act ("Dissolution
of the Corporation..."). I believe the two lists I
have offered above illustrate both exceeding / abuse
of power and persistent default on duties. I request
you to kindly let me know of procedure, if any, by
which I might urge / inform Central Government opinion
under s.490 of MCD Act." My letter is posted at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/p/051117
I do not know if your high-level meeting had anything
to do with (copy of) my letter of 17.11.05, but
through it you are seized of my pending request to
MoHA, which makes me entitled to be provided at your
initiative information under s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act,
2005 as person affected by the decision taken at your
meeting. I request you to provide me the same at the
earliest or, if you wish to refuse, let me know right
away.
I also request you to advice me about what to do about
communications, CVC reference, references from
President Sectt, etc, to Delhi Govt that got forwarded
to Mr Rakesh Mehta in 2003-2005 for ATR to me (which
he did not provide). This is because these forwardings
(besides replies filed / not filed by MCD / Delhi Govt
in court matters, etc) are central to the second list
on offer in my letter of 17.11.05.
Lastly, I again request you to bear in mind that
should you require, for your duties as Chief Secretary
of my government, any information (of the type and
quality that marks my communications) or any other
plannerly assistance from me, I am bound by my duty of
care as a professional planner to be at your disposal.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information wrt letter of 17.11.2005
* JS(D&L), MoUD
* JS(UT), MoHA
* MCD Commissioner
* az plan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Dear Mr Regunathan,
Please refer to news item titled 'Delhi Govt. sitting
on new building bye-law file' in The Hindu dated
19.12.05. This says: "At a high level meeting convened
by the Chief Secretary recently... Mr. Regunathan
sought to know from Principal Secretary (Health)
Rakesh Mehta, who monitored the whole exercise as
Municipal Commissioner... as to who ordered framing of
the new building byelaws. After being informed that it
was at the instance of the previous
Lieutenant-Governor Vijai Kapoor that this exercise
was carried out, Mr. Regunathan asked the officials to
produce a letter to support the claim. However, Mr.
Mehta pointed out that such orders were not issued in
writing. The officials present at the meeting informed
that the present byelaws were anarchic in nature and
if Inspector Raj and redtapism was to end and if at
all the Delhi Government was interested in putting an
end to illegal and unauthorised constructions, the new
bye-laws that had the financial as well as
administrative backing of USAID, which had sanctioned
Rs. 1 crore for this project, had to be put in place
as soon as possible. The meeting was also informed
that the Delhi Cabinet had already approved it... It
was pointed out that matter had to be sent to the
Central Government as soon as possible so that the
necessary amendments to the law were made at the
earliest". This item is available on the web-edition
of The Hindu at:
http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/19/stories/2005121912420400.htm
And please refer to my letter of 17.11.2005 to
JS(UT)-MoHA with copies to yourself, Commissioner-MCD
and JS(D&L)-MoUD, in which I have pointed out that
so-called new-building-byelaws being pursued since
2003 (and so-called Local-Area-Plans, such as one for
which so-called public-interaction with so-called RWA
was held in Vasant Vihar on 10.12.05) proceed from
Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2005,
that is USAID-sponsored and, in my view, in
contravention of Constitutional provisions for
Statehood and Decentralisation and the (central) Delhi
Development Act / Master Plan framework (ie,
tantamount to collusion by Delhi Govt / MCD with
foreign agency to subvert the authority of Government
of India) and said: "If required I can send a
clause-by-clause list of description of changes
proposed by this scurrilous Bill for a self-speaking
account of the true import of its content... If
required I could send a long list of recent schemes,
etc, of MCD / Delhi Government that are unmindful of
the statutory Delhi Master Plan framework for
equitable and efficient planned development... I do
believe that two-year long and continuing pursuit of a
patently unconstitutional USAID-sponsored Bill is
proof that governance in Delhi has slipped out of the
framework of the Constitution. An intuitive sense of
justice impels me to seek clarification of scope and
procedure in respect of s.490 of MCD Act ("Dissolution
of the Corporation..."). I believe the two lists I
have offered above illustrate both exceeding / abuse
of power and persistent default on duties. I request
you to kindly let me know of procedure, if any, by
which I might urge / inform Central Government opinion
under s.490 of MCD Act." My letter is posted at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/p/051117
I do not know if your high-level meeting had anything
to do with (copy of) my letter of 17.11.05, but
through it you are seized of my pending request to
MoHA, which makes me entitled to be provided at your
initiative information under s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act,
2005 as person affected by the decision taken at your
meeting. I request you to provide me the same at the
earliest or, if you wish to refuse, let me know right
away.
I also request you to advice me about what to do about
communications, CVC reference, references from
President Sectt, etc, to Delhi Govt that got forwarded
to Mr Rakesh Mehta in 2003-2005 for ATR to me (which
he did not provide). This is because these forwardings
(besides replies filed / not filed by MCD / Delhi Govt
in court matters, etc) are central to the second list
on offer in my letter of 17.11.05.
Lastly, I again request you to bear in mind that
should you require, for your duties as Chief Secretary
of my government, any information (of the type and
quality that marks my communications) or any other
plannerly assistance from me, I am bound by my duty of
care as a professional planner to be at your disposal.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information wrt letter of 17.11.2005
* JS(D&L), MoUD
* JS(UT), MoHA
* MCD Commissioner
* az plan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com