Ms. Naini Jayaseelan,
Secretary (E&F), Delhi Govt
Level-6, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate New
Delhi-02
Dear Madam,
Please refer to my eml dated 02.01.07 requesting
information about RTI Act implementation / CPIOs in
DPCC and Forest Deptt and Ridge-Management-Board, at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00760.shtml
I have had no response as yet.
Meanwhile, I have perused websites on Delhi govt
domain and reached certain inferences, which are at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/anomie/RTI/nbsap/060109
These, in sum, make a prima-facie suggestion that
Forest Deptt and DPCC are giving effect to various
statutory provisions while Environment Deptt is giving
effect to the Bhagidaari program of Delhi Govt; the
assumption that Bhagidaari achievements are leading to
environmental achievements is at best a hypothesis
belied by at least some information disclosed or
suppressed; and, as such, information available for
environment-related activities of Delhi Govt under RTI
Act is more accurately described as advocacy than
disclosure, irrelevant if not contrary to transparency
and accountability purposes of the Act.
I would be glad to hear your view on my surmise.
Meanwhile, I urge you to at least provide me the
information for which my eml was intended, viz, about:
(a) Ridge Management Board to which you, presumably as
Secretary (Forest) in charge of Forest Deptt, have
reportedly asked to make a proposal; and
(b) Activities apropos EIA notification of DPCC, of
which you are Chairperson, especially in respect of
development projects in ridge and riverbed areas
I am prevented from exercising my RTI under s.6 of RTI
Act, 2005, since neither RMB nor EIA notification is
mentioned on Environment Deptt website, since CPIOs
for Forest Deptt and DPCC are not designated, and
since my unanswered eml of 02.01.07 was copied to
designated CPIO for Environment Deptt and addressed to
you, designated Fist Appellate Authority. Moreover,
about Delhi Govt decisions to collaborate with RMB and
selectively apply EIA notification I am entitled to
information under s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act, being
affected-person in view of failure of Delhi Govt to
file counter-affidavits on notice of 22.09.04 in PIL
of 2003 in which I have sworn, as Petitioner's
planner, two affidavits about constructions in ridge
area and notice of 13.09.05 in my writ petition
against developments on riverbed, etc, in disregard of
EIA notification, etc.
I am not able to make out from available information
who, apart from you, is concerned official in respect
of statutory / policy frameworks and am copying this
eml to all ids available on the 3 websites. I am also
dispatching the text by courier to you since my
previous eml has not been acknowledged and so I have
no confirmation of eml ids to which it was sent. I
look forward to you reply.
Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Secretary (E&F), Delhi Govt
Level-6, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate New
Delhi-02
Dear Madam,
Please refer to my eml dated 02.01.07 requesting
information about RTI Act implementation / CPIOs in
DPCC and Forest Deptt and Ridge-Management-Board, at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00760.shtml
I have had no response as yet.
Meanwhile, I have perused websites on Delhi govt
domain and reached certain inferences, which are at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/anomie/RTI/nbsap/060109
These, in sum, make a prima-facie suggestion that
Forest Deptt and DPCC are giving effect to various
statutory provisions while Environment Deptt is giving
effect to the Bhagidaari program of Delhi Govt; the
assumption that Bhagidaari achievements are leading to
environmental achievements is at best a hypothesis
belied by at least some information disclosed or
suppressed; and, as such, information available for
environment-related activities of Delhi Govt under RTI
Act is more accurately described as advocacy than
disclosure, irrelevant if not contrary to transparency
and accountability purposes of the Act.
I would be glad to hear your view on my surmise.
Meanwhile, I urge you to at least provide me the
information for which my eml was intended, viz, about:
(a) Ridge Management Board to which you, presumably as
Secretary (Forest) in charge of Forest Deptt, have
reportedly asked to make a proposal; and
(b) Activities apropos EIA notification of DPCC, of
which you are Chairperson, especially in respect of
development projects in ridge and riverbed areas
I am prevented from exercising my RTI under s.6 of RTI
Act, 2005, since neither RMB nor EIA notification is
mentioned on Environment Deptt website, since CPIOs
for Forest Deptt and DPCC are not designated, and
since my unanswered eml of 02.01.07 was copied to
designated CPIO for Environment Deptt and addressed to
you, designated Fist Appellate Authority. Moreover,
about Delhi Govt decisions to collaborate with RMB and
selectively apply EIA notification I am entitled to
information under s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act, being
affected-person in view of failure of Delhi Govt to
file counter-affidavits on notice of 22.09.04 in PIL
of 2003 in which I have sworn, as Petitioner's
planner, two affidavits about constructions in ridge
area and notice of 13.09.05 in my writ petition
against developments on riverbed, etc, in disregard of
EIA notification, etc.
I am not able to make out from available information
who, apart from you, is concerned official in respect
of statutory / policy frameworks and am copying this
eml to all ids available on the 3 websites. I am also
dispatching the text by courier to you since my
previous eml has not been acknowledged and so I have
no confirmation of eml ids to which it was sent. I
look forward to you reply.
Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com