Mr Dinesh Rai, DDA VC
Dear Sir,
Permit me to introduce myself as a planner
independently engaging with MPD-2021 since start of
revision in 1999 and to recall to you the two
occasions on which we have met, viz, at my hearing for
MPD-2021 on 03.10.2005 and at hearing by Central
Information Commission of Complaint by Mr Sarabjit Roy
on 23.12.2005. Permit me also to clarify that my
interest in RTI in DDA lies in broader interest in
convergence of accountability guarantees for planned
development and is intrinsically related to draft
MPD-2021.
Please refer to:
(a)
Communication (copied to me by e-mail of 13.01.2006)
by which LG Sectt has transferred to you my e-mail of
28.12.2005 seeking certain information under s.4(1)(d)
of RTI Act in view of the hearing on 23.12.2005 and my
related communications.
(b)
My note arising from a post on my public mailing-list
dated 14.12.2005 by Mr Manoj Chaudhry, MD, Wildrift
Adventures, about 5 letters from DDA pursuant to 2 RTI
requests (no.485 & 486) made to DDA on his behalf by
Mr Balbir Singh.
These are at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/anomie/RTI/dda/
The Wildrift Adventures case captures well my concerns
about RTI in DDA. The RTI requests were made on
02.12.2005 in context of request to reschedule hearing
on MPD-2021 for which Mr Chaudhry was called to third
public hearing on 03.12.2005 when he was not in Delhi.
Information about hearing proceedings and about
disposal of a prior Public Notice response that he had
filed in 2004 was sought, as part of this request and
additionally under RTI, for purpose of preparing a
focussed presentation. As set out in my note:
(1)
4 letters written by 3 PIOs to Mr Balbir Singh failed
to provide the required information and are fraught
with infirmities in terms of RTI Act and/or
inconsistent with submissions made on behalf of DDA
before Central Information Commission on 23.12.2005 as
well as in recent counter-affidavits in my pending
writ petition about Public Notice process.
(2)
The fifth letter, calling for MPD-2021 Public Notice
hearing on 16.01.2006 Mr Balbir Singh who has not
filed any objection/suggestion, not only renders the
RTI requests infructuous and counter-productive, but
also vitiates this fourth public hearing (that, in my
view, is anyway vitiated by scheduling in pendency of
the matter before the Commission that directed an
affidavit about Public Notice proceedings on
23.12.2005, when fact of this hearing was suppressed
despite presence of all concerned officials, and also
in pendency of my RTI requests including the one
lately transferred to you by LG Sectt).
I have previously pointed out that the first two
public hearings were vitiated by lack of quorum of
Board and the third by declaration of intent to use
his quasi-judicial position for advocacy by Mr
Virender Kasana, added to the Board on 02.12.2005. In
course of my RTI request of 05.12.2005 (pending in
First Appeal in DDA) about reconstitution of the
Board, I was told the fourth public hearing is to be
the last. In that case, the entire MPD-2021 Public
Notice stands poised to be vitiated. I am bound by my
professional Duty of Care to urge, persuade and
support DDA to salvage the situation and will be doing
so.
The present communication is only to urge steps to
ensure that RTI Act does not join the long list of
accountability guarantees whose subversion has been
germane to subversion of DDA's pioneering planned
development mandate in the course of this MPD
revision.
Permit me to suggest in this regard that, in line with
roles contemplated in DD Act, DDA Secretary be
designated CPIO and DDA VC First Appellate Authority
for RTI Act. (From perspective of DD Act alone I would
have suggested DDA Chairman be designated as First
Appellate Authority. But that is the LG, ex-officio,
also Competent Authority for RTI Act).
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information: CIC Registrar | DDA PIOs/AAs | az
plan | Wildrift Adventures
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Dear Sir,
Permit me to introduce myself as a planner
independently engaging with MPD-2021 since start of
revision in 1999 and to recall to you the two
occasions on which we have met, viz, at my hearing for
MPD-2021 on 03.10.2005 and at hearing by Central
Information Commission of Complaint by Mr Sarabjit Roy
on 23.12.2005. Permit me also to clarify that my
interest in RTI in DDA lies in broader interest in
convergence of accountability guarantees for planned
development and is intrinsically related to draft
MPD-2021.
Please refer to:
(a)
Communication (copied to me by e-mail of 13.01.2006)
by which LG Sectt has transferred to you my e-mail of
28.12.2005 seeking certain information under s.4(1)(d)
of RTI Act in view of the hearing on 23.12.2005 and my
related communications.
(b)
My note arising from a post on my public mailing-list
dated 14.12.2005 by Mr Manoj Chaudhry, MD, Wildrift
Adventures, about 5 letters from DDA pursuant to 2 RTI
requests (no.485 & 486) made to DDA on his behalf by
Mr Balbir Singh.
These are at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/anomie/RTI/dda/
The Wildrift Adventures case captures well my concerns
about RTI in DDA. The RTI requests were made on
02.12.2005 in context of request to reschedule hearing
on MPD-2021 for which Mr Chaudhry was called to third
public hearing on 03.12.2005 when he was not in Delhi.
Information about hearing proceedings and about
disposal of a prior Public Notice response that he had
filed in 2004 was sought, as part of this request and
additionally under RTI, for purpose of preparing a
focussed presentation. As set out in my note:
(1)
4 letters written by 3 PIOs to Mr Balbir Singh failed
to provide the required information and are fraught
with infirmities in terms of RTI Act and/or
inconsistent with submissions made on behalf of DDA
before Central Information Commission on 23.12.2005 as
well as in recent counter-affidavits in my pending
writ petition about Public Notice process.
(2)
The fifth letter, calling for MPD-2021 Public Notice
hearing on 16.01.2006 Mr Balbir Singh who has not
filed any objection/suggestion, not only renders the
RTI requests infructuous and counter-productive, but
also vitiates this fourth public hearing (that, in my
view, is anyway vitiated by scheduling in pendency of
the matter before the Commission that directed an
affidavit about Public Notice proceedings on
23.12.2005, when fact of this hearing was suppressed
despite presence of all concerned officials, and also
in pendency of my RTI requests including the one
lately transferred to you by LG Sectt).
I have previously pointed out that the first two
public hearings were vitiated by lack of quorum of
Board and the third by declaration of intent to use
his quasi-judicial position for advocacy by Mr
Virender Kasana, added to the Board on 02.12.2005. In
course of my RTI request of 05.12.2005 (pending in
First Appeal in DDA) about reconstitution of the
Board, I was told the fourth public hearing is to be
the last. In that case, the entire MPD-2021 Public
Notice stands poised to be vitiated. I am bound by my
professional Duty of Care to urge, persuade and
support DDA to salvage the situation and will be doing
so.
The present communication is only to urge steps to
ensure that RTI Act does not join the long list of
accountability guarantees whose subversion has been
germane to subversion of DDA's pioneering planned
development mandate in the course of this MPD
revision.
Permit me to suggest in this regard that, in line with
roles contemplated in DD Act, DDA Secretary be
designated CPIO and DDA VC First Appellate Authority
for RTI Act. (From perspective of DD Act alone I would
have suggested DDA Chairman be designated as First
Appellate Authority. But that is the LG, ex-officio,
also Competent Authority for RTI Act).
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information: CIC Registrar | DDA PIOs/AAs | az
plan | Wildrift Adventures
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com