Addl Secy & PS to LG
PIO, LG Sectt, Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054
Dear Sir,
Thank you for e-mail of 13.01.2006 about forwarding
mine of 28.12.2005 to DDA VC for appropriate action
within stipulated time-frame. I am unaware of
time-frame stipulation for s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005,
and request you to kindly let me know the same.
Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
--- piolg.delhi@xxxxxx wrote:
---------------------------------
Please find enclosed anapplication received
through E-Mail of Ms. Geeta Diwan Verma seekingcertain
information under Right to Information Act, 2005.
It is requested that anappropriate action as
per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 inthe
matter be taken under intimation to this Secretariat
within astipulated time frame.
(V.P. RAO)
Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor
Encl: As above.
VC, DDA
U.O. No. RTI/05/RN/
Dated:
Copy to:
Ms. Gita Diwan Verma.
(V.P. RAO)
Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor
> Addl Secy & PS to LG (PIO) /Secretary to LG (AA)
> LG's Secretariat, Raj Niwas, Delhi -110054
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I seekinformation about status of compliance of
> directions for theLieutenant Governor in three
> judgments of Delhi High Court.
>
> I urge you to consider publishing this information
> under s.4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act,
2005,
>as relevant facts related to important and
> well-publiciseddecisions for compliance of other
> orders of Delhi High Court.
>
> And I request you to kindly provide (or refuse to
> provide) to me, at the earliest, this information
>under s.4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act,
2005.
>
>
> I am affected person since DDA Secretary has stated
> before Central Information Commission on 23.12.05
(in
>hearing of a complaint about MPD-2021 Public Notice
in
> which Iam not impleaded) that I should file a
> petition. This was whileobjecting to my making a
> submission, which I wished to make incontext of my
> representation of 25/26.10.05 to LG / DDAChairman
and
> DDA PIOs/AAs regarding RTI Act and MPD-2021 and
> subsequent requests to DDA and representation of
>20.12.05 to LG. (The latter I had also made to CIC
and
> wasattending the hearing in that context). I
construe
> thestatement of DDA Secretary as DDA decision to
> reject my RTIrequests / suggestions and invite a
> petition. I am obviouslyaffected and since DDA
> Secretary also stated before CIC thatreasons for
> decisions need not be disclosed, I am constrainedto
> request instead under s.4(1)(d) an array of facts on
> which the said reasons might reasonably reckoned to
> havebeen based. The three court judgments, and how
> they relate tothe petition that I have to file, are
> as follows:
>
> ===
> 1. Judgment dated 25.11.2005 in WP(C)8237-56/2005
> (Bhumiheen Camp & Ors v/s DDA & Ors)directing, inter
> alia, that "the site where the residentsof Bhumiheen
> Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhiwould
> be relocated, will be decided by the L-G".
>
> (My objections/suggestions are pending disposal by
> Boards for Public Notices of 08.04.05 for MPD-2021
> thatproposes flatted slum re-housing options and of
> 31.08.05 forland use change of Tughlakabad District
> Park to residential forthe pilot-project for slum
> flats for which this petition wasfielded. The
> pilot-project was already undertaken in affidavit
> filed by Secretary MoUD in Supreme Court in the
Yamuna
> matter in September and the policy-option reportedly
>came up on Agenda of Authority meeting on 19.10.05. I
> apprehendthat recent press statements by Chief
> Minister Ms SheilaDikshit, Delhi Urban Development
> Minister Mr AK Walia and NewDelhi MP Mr Ajay Maken
> are further pre-empting impartialdisposal of Public
> Notice objections/suggestions. Withreference to news
> reports of the judgment I has sought
a-prioridisposal
> of these in representation dated 03.12.05 to LG,
cited
> in my representation dated 20.12.05 about RTI).
>
> ===
> 2. Judgment dated 17.12.2004 in WP(C) 19808/2004
> (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v/s DDA & Ors)
>directing that the petition (for directions to
> authorities forencroachment removal around DMRC
> constructions at Shastri Parkon Yamuna riverbed) "be
> treated as a representation to theLt.Governor of
> Delhi... Lt.Governor of Delhi is directed totake a
> decision within 2 weeks from today. Lt.Governor of
> Delhi would also ensure that his order is complied
>with".
>
> (I was party to joint representationdated 26.12.04
> for simultaneous consideration by LG against the
> unauthorised DMRC constructions at Shastri Park in
>defiance of court order of 03.03.03 against all
> unauthorisedstructures on the riverbed by which a
> portion of Pushta wassimultaneously being cleared.
> Counter-affidavits in a writpetition I filed in
April
> 2005 have revealed that the DMRCconstruction at
> Shastri Park was informally"sanctioned" at a meeting
> in Rajniwas in 2003 anddoes not have even building
> permit. I apprehend the affidavitof Secretary MoUD,
> who is also DMRC Chairman, subsequentpresentation by
> East Delhi MP Mr Sandeep Dikshit of ariverfront
> scheme to Delhi cabinet and recent remarks of New
> Delhi MP have emboldened DMRC to expand, with no
>reference to my pending writ petition, the
description
> of itsunauthorised Shastri Park project on it
website
> and that it maywell be pursuing further phases of
the
> same, in defiance now ofcourt orders for demolition
> of all unauthorised constructionsin Delhi. My writ
> petition is in the matter of violations ofPublic
> Notice process and frequently cited in my RTI
>representations)
>
> ===
> 3. Judgment dated16.09.2002 in WP 4978/2002 (Delhi
> Science Forum v/s DDA &Ar) stopping construction of
> mega-housing in Sultangarhi ridgeperiphery while
> observing "it is a fit case where theChairman of the
> first respondent should see to it that
howauthorities
> of the first respondent herein were allowed to take
> such decisions which admittedly are wholly illegal
and
> without jurisdiction. ...once such illegalities are
>permitted the same in our opinion would give further
> incentiveto a statutory authority like the first
> respondent herein toperpetuate the same and to
> indulge in other illegalities".
>
> (This PIL arose from my communications since 2000and
> the s.11A Public Notice precipitated by it was the
> first in many years and the last before the one for
>MPD-2021 for which a Board of Enquiry & Hearing heard
>responses. The judgement and Public Notice are the
> basis of mysubsequent Public notice and court
matters
> and representations,including application of
01.10.05
> under s.41(3) of DD Act to LGabout the composition
> and functioning of the Board forMPD-2021, from which
> arose my request of 15.12.05 unders.4(1)(d) of RTI
> Act, 2005, about reconstitution of the same.This was
> also the subject of the Complaint that CIC was
hearing
> on 23.12.05).
>
> ===
>
>
> Thanking you,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>
> cc az plan
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
PIO, LG Sectt, Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054
Dear Sir,
Thank you for e-mail of 13.01.2006 about forwarding
mine of 28.12.2005 to DDA VC for appropriate action
within stipulated time-frame. I am unaware of
time-frame stipulation for s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005,
and request you to kindly let me know the same.
Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
--- piolg.delhi@xxxxxx wrote:
---------------------------------
Please find enclosed anapplication received
through E-Mail of Ms. Geeta Diwan Verma seekingcertain
information under Right to Information Act, 2005.
It is requested that anappropriate action as
per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 inthe
matter be taken under intimation to this Secretariat
within astipulated time frame.
(V.P. RAO)
Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor
Encl: As above.
VC, DDA
U.O. No. RTI/05/RN/
Dated:
Copy to:
Ms. Gita Diwan Verma.
(V.P. RAO)
Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor
> Addl Secy & PS to LG (PIO) /Secretary to LG (AA)
> LG's Secretariat, Raj Niwas, Delhi -110054
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I seekinformation about status of compliance of
> directions for theLieutenant Governor in three
> judgments of Delhi High Court.
>
> I urge you to consider publishing this information
> under s.4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act,
2005,
>as relevant facts related to important and
> well-publiciseddecisions for compliance of other
> orders of Delhi High Court.
>
> And I request you to kindly provide (or refuse to
> provide) to me, at the earliest, this information
>under s.4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act,
2005.
>
>
> I am affected person since DDA Secretary has stated
> before Central Information Commission on 23.12.05
(in
>hearing of a complaint about MPD-2021 Public Notice
in
> which Iam not impleaded) that I should file a
> petition. This was whileobjecting to my making a
> submission, which I wished to make incontext of my
> representation of 25/26.10.05 to LG / DDAChairman
and
> DDA PIOs/AAs regarding RTI Act and MPD-2021 and
> subsequent requests to DDA and representation of
>20.12.05 to LG. (The latter I had also made to CIC
and
> wasattending the hearing in that context). I
construe
> thestatement of DDA Secretary as DDA decision to
> reject my RTIrequests / suggestions and invite a
> petition. I am obviouslyaffected and since DDA
> Secretary also stated before CIC thatreasons for
> decisions need not be disclosed, I am constrainedto
> request instead under s.4(1)(d) an array of facts on
> which the said reasons might reasonably reckoned to
> havebeen based. The three court judgments, and how
> they relate tothe petition that I have to file, are
> as follows:
>
> ===
> 1. Judgment dated 25.11.2005 in WP(C)8237-56/2005
> (Bhumiheen Camp & Ors v/s DDA & Ors)directing, inter
> alia, that "the site where the residentsof Bhumiheen
> Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhiwould
> be relocated, will be decided by the L-G".
>
> (My objections/suggestions are pending disposal by
> Boards for Public Notices of 08.04.05 for MPD-2021
> thatproposes flatted slum re-housing options and of
> 31.08.05 forland use change of Tughlakabad District
> Park to residential forthe pilot-project for slum
> flats for which this petition wasfielded. The
> pilot-project was already undertaken in affidavit
> filed by Secretary MoUD in Supreme Court in the
Yamuna
> matter in September and the policy-option reportedly
>came up on Agenda of Authority meeting on 19.10.05. I
> apprehendthat recent press statements by Chief
> Minister Ms SheilaDikshit, Delhi Urban Development
> Minister Mr AK Walia and NewDelhi MP Mr Ajay Maken
> are further pre-empting impartialdisposal of Public
> Notice objections/suggestions. Withreference to news
> reports of the judgment I has sought
a-prioridisposal
> of these in representation dated 03.12.05 to LG,
cited
> in my representation dated 20.12.05 about RTI).
>
> ===
> 2. Judgment dated 17.12.2004 in WP(C) 19808/2004
> (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v/s DDA & Ors)
>directing that the petition (for directions to
> authorities forencroachment removal around DMRC
> constructions at Shastri Parkon Yamuna riverbed) "be
> treated as a representation to theLt.Governor of
> Delhi... Lt.Governor of Delhi is directed totake a
> decision within 2 weeks from today. Lt.Governor of
> Delhi would also ensure that his order is complied
>with".
>
> (I was party to joint representationdated 26.12.04
> for simultaneous consideration by LG against the
> unauthorised DMRC constructions at Shastri Park in
>defiance of court order of 03.03.03 against all
> unauthorisedstructures on the riverbed by which a
> portion of Pushta wassimultaneously being cleared.
> Counter-affidavits in a writpetition I filed in
April
> 2005 have revealed that the DMRCconstruction at
> Shastri Park was informally"sanctioned" at a meeting
> in Rajniwas in 2003 anddoes not have even building
> permit. I apprehend the affidavitof Secretary MoUD,
> who is also DMRC Chairman, subsequentpresentation by
> East Delhi MP Mr Sandeep Dikshit of ariverfront
> scheme to Delhi cabinet and recent remarks of New
> Delhi MP have emboldened DMRC to expand, with no
>reference to my pending writ petition, the
description
> of itsunauthorised Shastri Park project on it
website
> and that it maywell be pursuing further phases of
the
> same, in defiance now ofcourt orders for demolition
> of all unauthorised constructionsin Delhi. My writ
> petition is in the matter of violations ofPublic
> Notice process and frequently cited in my RTI
>representations)
>
> ===
> 3. Judgment dated16.09.2002 in WP 4978/2002 (Delhi
> Science Forum v/s DDA &Ar) stopping construction of
> mega-housing in Sultangarhi ridgeperiphery while
> observing "it is a fit case where theChairman of the
> first respondent should see to it that
howauthorities
> of the first respondent herein were allowed to take
> such decisions which admittedly are wholly illegal
and
> without jurisdiction. ...once such illegalities are
>permitted the same in our opinion would give further
> incentiveto a statutory authority like the first
> respondent herein toperpetuate the same and to
> indulge in other illegalities".
>
> (This PIL arose from my communications since 2000and
> the s.11A Public Notice precipitated by it was the
> first in many years and the last before the one for
>MPD-2021 for which a Board of Enquiry & Hearing heard
>responses. The judgement and Public Notice are the
> basis of mysubsequent Public notice and court
matters
> and representations,including application of
01.10.05
> under s.41(3) of DD Act to LGabout the composition
> and functioning of the Board forMPD-2021, from which
> arose my request of 15.12.05 unders.4(1)(d) of RTI
> Act, 2005, about reconstitution of the same.This was
> also the subject of the Complaint that CIC was
hearing
> on 23.12.05).
>
> ===
>
>
> Thanking you,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>
> cc az plan
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com