see:
Make defaulters list public, says Aruna Roy
Staff Reporter
http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/06/stories/2006010611790400.htm
=====
I was waiting for media conf photos of Roy
tantalisingly waving pile of papers dutifully
presented to her by Kejriwal after exercising his
10/-wala RTI. Disappointing all fans, they have only
welcomingly echoed what Ms Sheila Dikshit has already
asked. For obvious reasons neither Delhi CEO Dikshit
nor leading Delhi RTI civil-soc-enterprise Roy &
Kejriwal & Assos are asking this under s.4(1)(c) of
RTI Act. (While taking maximum mileage from the older
Delhi RTI Act, neither did anything to empower MCD to
get s.4 going).
I wonder if the welcoming echoing is also end of
pow-wow over the DJB World Bank RTI affair (CEO cum
DJB Chairwoman did not ensure publication of what CSE
had then demanded and CSE seems not to have taken
advantage of its new RTI Act to make fresh demands or
complain/appeal).
Meanwhile, I have not been able to figure out how the
CSE obtained from DPCC under RTI some information that
they say led to DPCC public notice (defective) for EIA
hearing and, in its pendency, to their Supreme Court
PIL against VK Malls (again! in name now of Ridge
Bachao Andolan). DPCC CPIO is unlisted and Delhi
Environment Secy and CPIO have not disclosed to me
his/her identity or who-n-what of Ridge Management
Board that Env Secy is supporting in press, while
Board NGOs are supporting / part of Ridge Bachao
Andolan (of NGO/RWA bhagidaars). One of this lot had
called me for information about high court PIL of 2003
from mahipalpur. I told him that, like all cases I
advise, was for plan entitlements and against impeding
violations. DDA counter-affidavits had revealed that
projects like Delhi Govt mandi in ridge,
super-speciality hospital in green belt, etc, are
unauthorisedly constructed and they have boring and in
my view they should challenge those since the malls
(cleared by Supreme Court orders of 96-97 arising from
PIL at his instance and of 2004 in PIL based on his
PIL and CEC report on his application in CEC, all of
which helped our opposite counsel to delay notice till
September 2004) might no longer be assailable on their
grounds, as assurance of DJB water by September 2004
has been breached and construction started without
boring in August 2004 (after his CEC) by when DPCC
should have done or confirmed EIA by Supreme Court
order of 1996-97. In addition to this excellent
plannerly advise, I also told him the case and related
cases are on the web and even names of planglish
translator friends. I dunno why he scolded for not
co-operating, etc, might have been gender-bias or
planner-bias. (He told me about the Parivartan RTI to
DPCC).
In 2006 they are welcomingly echoing Dikshit to demand
transparency in court ordered demolitions of building
permit violations that, by all accounts (and despite
sustained obfuscation attempts), are progressing by
lawful procedure. In 2004 they did not echo, under
their Delhi RTI Act, affected people asking for
transparency about misuse of court orders for
effecting Pushta demolitions by MCD and industrial
closure by Delhi Govt. They also did not echo the
2-month long demand (coinciding with their
malls-clearing CEC round) for transparency from old
communities of Lalkhet that got evicted for the
malls-and-Park project, presumably because that
echoing would have jeopardised their demand for
declaring residential land forest under garb of their
repeatedly failing protest against construction in the
VK malls area.
Perhaps they think RTI in Delhi is a PPP joint venture
between them and Delhi Govt that licenses them to
interfere in anything at any time for its own
furtherance, by weakening all systems of democracy and
marginalizing all opinions that do not fall in line.
Perhaps that is why the RTI Act they wrote protects
them against itself and does not protect either itself
against their abuse or us against their
mis-information. They seem to wish to wield it as a
weapon in some pious jihad. What is it that they fight
for? Does any one know? They only seem to fight
against our systems, against our huge rights, against
our petty violations, against our opinions, against
us, against always against. These are no angst-people,
just against-people.
By the way, NAC has not got back on my RTI request to
it! (please no one say Roy and NAC are separate
things! not on RTI!!)
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Make defaulters list public, says Aruna Roy
Staff Reporter
http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/06/stories/2006010611790400.htm
=====
I was waiting for media conf photos of Roy
tantalisingly waving pile of papers dutifully
presented to her by Kejriwal after exercising his
10/-wala RTI. Disappointing all fans, they have only
welcomingly echoed what Ms Sheila Dikshit has already
asked. For obvious reasons neither Delhi CEO Dikshit
nor leading Delhi RTI civil-soc-enterprise Roy &
Kejriwal & Assos are asking this under s.4(1)(c) of
RTI Act. (While taking maximum mileage from the older
Delhi RTI Act, neither did anything to empower MCD to
get s.4 going).
I wonder if the welcoming echoing is also end of
pow-wow over the DJB World Bank RTI affair (CEO cum
DJB Chairwoman did not ensure publication of what CSE
had then demanded and CSE seems not to have taken
advantage of its new RTI Act to make fresh demands or
complain/appeal).
Meanwhile, I have not been able to figure out how the
CSE obtained from DPCC under RTI some information that
they say led to DPCC public notice (defective) for EIA
hearing and, in its pendency, to their Supreme Court
PIL against VK Malls (again! in name now of Ridge
Bachao Andolan). DPCC CPIO is unlisted and Delhi
Environment Secy and CPIO have not disclosed to me
his/her identity or who-n-what of Ridge Management
Board that Env Secy is supporting in press, while
Board NGOs are supporting / part of Ridge Bachao
Andolan (of NGO/RWA bhagidaars). One of this lot had
called me for information about high court PIL of 2003
from mahipalpur. I told him that, like all cases I
advise, was for plan entitlements and against impeding
violations. DDA counter-affidavits had revealed that
projects like Delhi Govt mandi in ridge,
super-speciality hospital in green belt, etc, are
unauthorisedly constructed and they have boring and in
my view they should challenge those since the malls
(cleared by Supreme Court orders of 96-97 arising from
PIL at his instance and of 2004 in PIL based on his
PIL and CEC report on his application in CEC, all of
which helped our opposite counsel to delay notice till
September 2004) might no longer be assailable on their
grounds, as assurance of DJB water by September 2004
has been breached and construction started without
boring in August 2004 (after his CEC) by when DPCC
should have done or confirmed EIA by Supreme Court
order of 1996-97. In addition to this excellent
plannerly advise, I also told him the case and related
cases are on the web and even names of planglish
translator friends. I dunno why he scolded for not
co-operating, etc, might have been gender-bias or
planner-bias. (He told me about the Parivartan RTI to
DPCC).
In 2006 they are welcomingly echoing Dikshit to demand
transparency in court ordered demolitions of building
permit violations that, by all accounts (and despite
sustained obfuscation attempts), are progressing by
lawful procedure. In 2004 they did not echo, under
their Delhi RTI Act, affected people asking for
transparency about misuse of court orders for
effecting Pushta demolitions by MCD and industrial
closure by Delhi Govt. They also did not echo the
2-month long demand (coinciding with their
malls-clearing CEC round) for transparency from old
communities of Lalkhet that got evicted for the
malls-and-Park project, presumably because that
echoing would have jeopardised their demand for
declaring residential land forest under garb of their
repeatedly failing protest against construction in the
VK malls area.
Perhaps they think RTI in Delhi is a PPP joint venture
between them and Delhi Govt that licenses them to
interfere in anything at any time for its own
furtherance, by weakening all systems of democracy and
marginalizing all opinions that do not fall in line.
Perhaps that is why the RTI Act they wrote protects
them against itself and does not protect either itself
against their abuse or us against their
mis-information. They seem to wish to wield it as a
weapon in some pious jihad. What is it that they fight
for? Does any one know? They only seem to fight
against our systems, against our huge rights, against
our petty violations, against our opinions, against
us, against always against. These are no angst-people,
just against-people.
By the way, NAC has not got back on my RTI request to
it! (please no one say Roy and NAC are separate
things! not on RTI!!)
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com