CPIO, MoUD
Dear Mr Rajamani,
Please refer to my request of 05.12.05 to you to
publish information as per s.4 of RTI Act, 2005, in
respect of MoUD tender inviting by 19.12.05 EoI for
CDPs for JnNURM funds:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00710.shtml
I do not find the information requested on MoUD
website and am aggrieved by opacity in the tender
procedure and, as affected person, entitled under
s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act to information at MoUD initiative
about reasons for its decisions arising from this
tender. Accordingly, I request list of names, etc, of
firms that have responded to the tender and any other
information that you think I will need to further my
professional interests in JnNURM / keep track of
further decisions affecting me.
I also invite your attention to news item of 19.12.05
saying that previous MCD Commissioner has informed a
high-level meeting that municipal law /
building-byelaw reform underway in Delhi since 2003 is
based only on oral orders and 1 cr support from USAID:
http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/19/stories/2005121912420400.htm
To my knowledge, the (USAID-made) model municipal law
has advanced to stage of a final (USAID-made) Bill
only in Delhi, though similar byelaw-reform is
underway in other cities and expected to gain momentum
under JnNURM. This seems case of left hand not knowing
what the right does / did: MoUD had constitutional
responsibility for this Delhi-experiment and the
JnNURM that implicitly assumes its *success* also
emanates from MoUD. I believe observations of
concerned MoUD departments / officials on this
Delhi-experiment and how they informed departments /
officials formulating JnNURM warrant:
(a) publication u/s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act as a relevant
fact pertaining to important policy formulation /
announcement
(b) providing to me at MoUD initiative u/s.4(1)(d) of
RTI Act since MoUD is seized of my reservations about
this Delhi-experiment through, eg, my
counter-arguments to the urgings of one of its USAID
coordinators at AUMDA conference on 20.09.05 and one
of its consultants before Standing Committee on
31.05.05 and vide (copy to JS(D&L) of) my
representation on 17.11.05 to MoHA regarding
dissolution of MCD for this and (especially since Mr
Mehta's reported statements confirm my core
contentions and subsequently announced JnNURM, etc,
make contrary assumptions) I am affected.
I request you to kindly and most expeditiously provide
me the above s.4(1)(d) information and to right away
either tell me about procedures/fees or communicate
your refusal.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information wrt letter of 17.11.2005
* JS(D&L), MoUD
* JS(UT), MoHA
* az plan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Dear Mr Rajamani,
Please refer to my request of 05.12.05 to you to
publish information as per s.4 of RTI Act, 2005, in
respect of MoUD tender inviting by 19.12.05 EoI for
CDPs for JnNURM funds:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00710.shtml
I do not find the information requested on MoUD
website and am aggrieved by opacity in the tender
procedure and, as affected person, entitled under
s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act to information at MoUD initiative
about reasons for its decisions arising from this
tender. Accordingly, I request list of names, etc, of
firms that have responded to the tender and any other
information that you think I will need to further my
professional interests in JnNURM / keep track of
further decisions affecting me.
I also invite your attention to news item of 19.12.05
saying that previous MCD Commissioner has informed a
high-level meeting that municipal law /
building-byelaw reform underway in Delhi since 2003 is
based only on oral orders and 1 cr support from USAID:
http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/19/stories/2005121912420400.htm
To my knowledge, the (USAID-made) model municipal law
has advanced to stage of a final (USAID-made) Bill
only in Delhi, though similar byelaw-reform is
underway in other cities and expected to gain momentum
under JnNURM. This seems case of left hand not knowing
what the right does / did: MoUD had constitutional
responsibility for this Delhi-experiment and the
JnNURM that implicitly assumes its *success* also
emanates from MoUD. I believe observations of
concerned MoUD departments / officials on this
Delhi-experiment and how they informed departments /
officials formulating JnNURM warrant:
(a) publication u/s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act as a relevant
fact pertaining to important policy formulation /
announcement
(b) providing to me at MoUD initiative u/s.4(1)(d) of
RTI Act since MoUD is seized of my reservations about
this Delhi-experiment through, eg, my
counter-arguments to the urgings of one of its USAID
coordinators at AUMDA conference on 20.09.05 and one
of its consultants before Standing Committee on
31.05.05 and vide (copy to JS(D&L) of) my
representation on 17.11.05 to MoHA regarding
dissolution of MCD for this and (especially since Mr
Mehta's reported statements confirm my core
contentions and subsequently announced JnNURM, etc,
make contrary assumptions) I am affected.
I request you to kindly and most expeditiously provide
me the above s.4(1)(d) information and to right away
either tell me about procedures/fees or communicate
your refusal.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information wrt letter of 17.11.2005
* JS(D&L), MoUD
* JS(UT), MoHA
* az plan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com