Shri M Rajamani, JS (UD) / JnNURM Director / CPIO MoUD
Shri PK Pradhan, JS (DD&L) / JNNURM Coordinator
(Delhi, etc)
Dear Sirs,
Please refer to MoUD letter No.K-11013/29/2005-DDIB of
09.01.06 transferring to MCD Commissioner my RTI
request u/s.4(1)(d) dated 21.12.05 referring to a
meeting at which former commissioner said that the MCD
Amendment Bill, 2005, ensued from oral orders and 1 cr
from USAID.
Under s.5(5), MCD Commissioner is deemed CPIO for my
request for purpose of any contravention of RTI Act.
My request was under s.4(1)(d), for which no
time-frame or penalties are stipulated. It was
transferred after the 5 days permitted under s.6(3),
on grounds that MoUD has no information of the
meeting. As clarified in my e-mail of 17.01.06, I had
not sought information of that meeting from MoUD and
had referred to it in context of related RTI requests,
u/s.4, to MoUD (notably about JNNURM and GATS) that
have neither been answered nor transferred. Firstly, I
request reply to those.
Secondly, apropos the transfer to MCD, I seek from
MoUD information of steps it has taken to protect my
rights (specifically, accountability purpose of RTI)
from being jeopardized by extra-constitutional MCD
amendments in pendency of my RTI request. In this
regard I wish to clarify the following:
1.
Through my letter of 17.11.05 MoUD is aware of my
thesis that Delhi Cabinet and MCD colluded with USAID
to subvert the Constitutional authority of Govt of
India (vested in MoUD) in a scurrilous attempt to
substitute regulatory regimes under MCD Act and DD Act
with a wholly unconstitutional and patently ludicrous
medley of self-sanctioned building plans with no
sanctity, area-specific bylaws to make local area
plans to make area-specific byelaws, etc. You were
also present on 30.05.05 before Lok Sabha Standing
Committee when I deposed after Mr Sudhir Vohra
(consultant to MCD-USAID exercise) who made a plea for
DDA dissolution. I had even then mentioned some of the
things mentioned in my letter of 17.11.05.
2.
MoUD is empowered to pro-actively protect MCD Act and
DD Act. The byelaw business was widely reported for
two years and would have reached MoUD for notifying
new byelaws proceeding from non-existent s.349P before
my letter of 17.11.05. On 19.12.05 press reported the
oral-orders-and-1-cr-from-USAID basis. Now High Court
has taken cognisance of violations of the existing
regime (which imply vested interests in its
substitution) by legislators and councillors. (USAID
interests in deregulation are well known, though the
rank incompetence and insensitivity displayed in the
byelaw business in Delhi seems exceptional). Still
MoUD has not acted against that collusion, emboldening
further subversion attempts. Please see, for instance,
news items such as:
* in ToI and Hindu of 28.01.06 with Delhi Minister Dr
AK Walia announcing illegal riverbed and re-housing
schemes / local area plans for/by area-specific law,
with claim of JNNURM support
* in Express Newsline of 29.01.06 quoting employees of
MCD and one Ramkey Ltd on policy extrapolation from
one illegal local-area-plan in the making, to coincide
with the mahapanchayat at which protest against court
orders was fomented by, among others, MPs on Advisory
Council of the DDA / MPD-2021 Board
* in Express Newsline of 30.01.06 quoting new MOS (a
position that, as far as I know, normally does not
have charge of Delhi Division) on need for practical
perspective on urban planning, in context of ongoing
demolitions
* on front page of HT of 31.01.06 about MHA initiative
to split MCD that the Minister himself will be
chairing a meeting for and in Pioneer about MOS and CM
getting together to resolve the so-called crisis, both
in context of ongoing demolitions of building permit
violations.
3.
For your information, apropos those of the above not
originating from MoUD / MCD / DDA I have made on
30-31.01.06 RTI requests under s.6(1) to Delhi Govt
and MHA even as I have no cause to go around applying
for information from all and sundry about their
extra-constitutional interferences in the mandate of
MoUD other than that MoUD seems unable or unwilling to
prevent them, despite my accountability guarantees
under DD Act and MCD Act. As such, I wonder what I can
expect from MoUD for protecting my accountability
guarantee under RTI Act after transferring to MCD
Commissioner my bafflement, expressed as RTI request
u/s.4(1)(d), about capital tolerance of participatory
law-making originating in oral orders and 1 crore from
USAID.
Lastly, announcements by Dr Walia appear in line with
reported contents of affidavit filed by MoUD Secretary
in PIL before the Supreme Court. I had made on
28.12.05 an RTI request under s.4(1)(d) r/w s.4(1)(c)
for a copy of that:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00749.shtml
Please send me the text by post or e-mail or refuse my
request and let me know if the document is available
under s.6 or who all already have copies of it.
Yours truly,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Shri PK Pradhan, JS (DD&L) / JNNURM Coordinator
(Delhi, etc)
Dear Sirs,
Please refer to MoUD letter No.K-11013/29/2005-DDIB of
09.01.06 transferring to MCD Commissioner my RTI
request u/s.4(1)(d) dated 21.12.05 referring to a
meeting at which former commissioner said that the MCD
Amendment Bill, 2005, ensued from oral orders and 1 cr
from USAID.
Under s.5(5), MCD Commissioner is deemed CPIO for my
request for purpose of any contravention of RTI Act.
My request was under s.4(1)(d), for which no
time-frame or penalties are stipulated. It was
transferred after the 5 days permitted under s.6(3),
on grounds that MoUD has no information of the
meeting. As clarified in my e-mail of 17.01.06, I had
not sought information of that meeting from MoUD and
had referred to it in context of related RTI requests,
u/s.4, to MoUD (notably about JNNURM and GATS) that
have neither been answered nor transferred. Firstly, I
request reply to those.
Secondly, apropos the transfer to MCD, I seek from
MoUD information of steps it has taken to protect my
rights (specifically, accountability purpose of RTI)
from being jeopardized by extra-constitutional MCD
amendments in pendency of my RTI request. In this
regard I wish to clarify the following:
1.
Through my letter of 17.11.05 MoUD is aware of my
thesis that Delhi Cabinet and MCD colluded with USAID
to subvert the Constitutional authority of Govt of
India (vested in MoUD) in a scurrilous attempt to
substitute regulatory regimes under MCD Act and DD Act
with a wholly unconstitutional and patently ludicrous
medley of self-sanctioned building plans with no
sanctity, area-specific bylaws to make local area
plans to make area-specific byelaws, etc. You were
also present on 30.05.05 before Lok Sabha Standing
Committee when I deposed after Mr Sudhir Vohra
(consultant to MCD-USAID exercise) who made a plea for
DDA dissolution. I had even then mentioned some of the
things mentioned in my letter of 17.11.05.
2.
MoUD is empowered to pro-actively protect MCD Act and
DD Act. The byelaw business was widely reported for
two years and would have reached MoUD for notifying
new byelaws proceeding from non-existent s.349P before
my letter of 17.11.05. On 19.12.05 press reported the
oral-orders-and-1-cr-from-USAID basis. Now High Court
has taken cognisance of violations of the existing
regime (which imply vested interests in its
substitution) by legislators and councillors. (USAID
interests in deregulation are well known, though the
rank incompetence and insensitivity displayed in the
byelaw business in Delhi seems exceptional). Still
MoUD has not acted against that collusion, emboldening
further subversion attempts. Please see, for instance,
news items such as:
* in ToI and Hindu of 28.01.06 with Delhi Minister Dr
AK Walia announcing illegal riverbed and re-housing
schemes / local area plans for/by area-specific law,
with claim of JNNURM support
* in Express Newsline of 29.01.06 quoting employees of
MCD and one Ramkey Ltd on policy extrapolation from
one illegal local-area-plan in the making, to coincide
with the mahapanchayat at which protest against court
orders was fomented by, among others, MPs on Advisory
Council of the DDA / MPD-2021 Board
* in Express Newsline of 30.01.06 quoting new MOS (a
position that, as far as I know, normally does not
have charge of Delhi Division) on need for practical
perspective on urban planning, in context of ongoing
demolitions
* on front page of HT of 31.01.06 about MHA initiative
to split MCD that the Minister himself will be
chairing a meeting for and in Pioneer about MOS and CM
getting together to resolve the so-called crisis, both
in context of ongoing demolitions of building permit
violations.
3.
For your information, apropos those of the above not
originating from MoUD / MCD / DDA I have made on
30-31.01.06 RTI requests under s.6(1) to Delhi Govt
and MHA even as I have no cause to go around applying
for information from all and sundry about their
extra-constitutional interferences in the mandate of
MoUD other than that MoUD seems unable or unwilling to
prevent them, despite my accountability guarantees
under DD Act and MCD Act. As such, I wonder what I can
expect from MoUD for protecting my accountability
guarantee under RTI Act after transferring to MCD
Commissioner my bafflement, expressed as RTI request
u/s.4(1)(d), about capital tolerance of participatory
law-making originating in oral orders and 1 crore from
USAID.
Lastly, announcements by Dr Walia appear in line with
reported contents of affidavit filed by MoUD Secretary
in PIL before the Supreme Court. I had made on
28.12.05 an RTI request under s.4(1)(d) r/w s.4(1)(c)
for a copy of that:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00749.shtml
Please send me the text by post or e-mail or refuse my
request and let me know if the document is available
under s.6 or who all already have copies of it.
Yours truly,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com