MCD split is CM proposal, not Delhi Govt proposal (and
evidently not political consensus proposal). would
that be routine darbaari-bhagidaari great-governance
or desperate resort to reform mantra to divert
attention from MCD Act violations / MCD mis-governance
by unstoppable grass-eating fence?
====MHA reply dated 31.01.06====
With reference to the your letter dated 31st January,
2006 on the subject noted above, I am to inform you
that a proposal received from the Chief Minister of
Delhi regarding division of the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD) into smaller municipal bodies, as
recommended by the Balakrishnan Committee and the
Virendra Prakash Committee, is under examination in
the Ministry of Home Affairs. No decision has so far
been taken in this regard.
========
> Part-II (i) of RTI Application deposited on 31.01.06
> in Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI
> ========
>
> Please refer to the news item on front page of HT
> dated 31.01.06 (text annexed) reporting a decision
> of
> MHA to consider / prepare a note about splitting
> MCD,
> to be discussed at a meeting chaired by the Minister
> later this week. I am unable to locate on MHA
> website
> any facts pertaining to this decision / formulation.
> I
> am also not in receipt of any information about
> reasons for the same as affected person in view of
> my
> representation dated 17.11.2005 to Dr KS Sugathan
> JS(UT). I request all relevant facts / reasons
> leading
> / pertaining to the said decision / formulation
> under
> s.6(1) r/w 48-hour proviso under s.7(1) of RTI Act,
> 2005, in view of the following:
>
> 1. In my representation of 17.11.05 to JS(UT) I had
> sought procedures for informing / urging Central
> Govt
> opinion in regard to MCD, in effect contending that
> proliferation of unauthorised construction in Delhi
> in
> recent years owes not to structural infirmities in
> MCD
> but to preoccupation with the pursuit of
> unconstitutional USAID-sponsored Bill for
> alternative
> building regulation regime in name of reform. My
> letter was copied for information to MCD
> Commissioner
> and Delhi Govt Chief Secretary and to JS (DD) in
> MoUD
> (as building regulation functions of MCD fall under
> MoUD).
>
> 2. On 21.12.05 I wrote again to JS(UT) with
> reference
> to a news item about a high-level meeting called by
> Chief Secretary at which former MCD Commissioner had
> stated that byelaw business / MCD Amendment Bill had
> ensued only on basis of some oral order and 1 cr
> from
> USAID. In this I had reiterated that I perceive
> prima-facie collusion between USAID and MCD/Delhi
> Cabinet to subvert the constitutional authority of
> Govt of India and had enclosed the requests for
> information that I had made, under s.4(1)(d) of RTI
> Act, by e-mail to Delhi Govt and MoUD in this
> regard.
>
> 3. I have received thereafter the following
> communications:
> (a) Copy of F.No.13/102/2003/UD/Pt.file.II/14421 of
> 20.12.05 from Delhi Govt Dy.Secy (UD) to MCD
> Commissioner, forwarding copy of mine of 17.11.05
> "to
> take appropriate action at your end and furnish the
> ATR/comments to the representationist...".
> (b) Copy of no. D/925/EE(B)/HQ of 22.12.05 from MCD
> SE
> (Bldg.) HQ to RM Kapoor & Bimal Patel (private
> consultants engaged for the USAID-sponsored Bill),
> forwarding copy of mine of 17.11.05 "for
> consideration
> and further necessary action".
> (c) Copy of No.K-11013/29/2005-DDIB of 09.01.06 from
> Under Secy MoUD (Delhi Division) to MCD
> Commissioner,
> with approval of CPIO, enclosing my e-mail of
> 21.12.05
> mentioning "a high-level meeting regarding municipal
> law / byelaw reform. As this Ministry has no
> information on this subject, you are requested to
> take
> appropriate action in the matter in accordance with
> the provisions of the RTI Act".
>
> 4. After the forwarding of my letter dated 17.11.05
> to
> the USAID consultants (presumably as affected
> persons), I had reiterated my s.4(1)(d) requests on
> 29.12.05 to Delhi Govt Chief Secretary on 03.01.06
> to
> MoUD. I had not bothered MHA further since it had
> not
> responded to my letter of 17.11.05 and since
> building
> regulation in Delhi does not fall under its purview.
> Also developments pursuant to court orders for
> demolition of unauthorised (in terms of the existing
> building regulation regime) constructions, which MHA
> was reportedly monitoring, did reveal sufficiently
> the
> vested interests of Delhi Cabinet Ministers and
> others
> in a substitute regime and I assumed that MHA would
> view that in perspective of my letters (especially
> hypothesis of collusion to subvert authority of
> Central Govt). And the letter of 09.01.06 from MoUD
> to
> MCD has officially brought my matter in the purview
> of
> RTI Act (making MCD Commissioner himself deemed CPIO
> for it).
>
> 5. Now, without having replied to my letter of
> 17.11.05 for information of procedures for informing
> /
> urging Central Govt opinion in the matter of
> scurrilously attempted legislative amendment to
> building regulation functions of MCD and in pendency
> of my same matter under RTI Act proceedings
> involving
> MoUD & MCD, MHA has decided to consider a different
> approach to MCD law reform for the same purpose on
> basis of incidental remarks of the court in matters
> pertaining to MCD building regulation functions in
> which directions support my contentions. Apart from
> not informing me under s.4(1)(d) of reasons for its
> decision, MHA has also not published under s.4(1)(c)
> relevant facts of the same and it is not even clear
> why it is undertaking an exercise based on the
> building regulation functions of MCD that fall in
> purview of MoUD.
>
> Under the circumstances, I feel constrained to
> resort
> to s.6(1) r/w s.7(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
>
> ====
>
> Hindustan Times, Tuesday, January 31, 2006 (Front
> Page)
>
> Mutilate MCD
> MHA proposes smaller civic bodies
>
> RAJNISH Sharma
> New Delhi, January 30
>
> CONCERNED OVER the Delhi HC's directive to demolish
> unauthorised constructions and its criticism of the
> MCD's failure to check the proliferation of such
> structures, the Home Ministry is considering the
> idea
> of splitting the corporation into smaller civic
> agencies.
>
> According to sources, an internal note prepared by
> the
> ministry says the MCD should be split into nine
> separate agencies along the lines of the nine police
> and nine revenue districts in the Capital.
>
> Later this week, Home Minister Shivraj Patil will
> chair a meeting of ministry officials to discuss
> various aspects related to dividing the MCD.
>
> Ministry officials say a division will ensure better
> co-ordination among the three most important
> agencies
> - revenue, the police and the corporation.
>
> A ministry official says there is a strong case for
> splitting of the MCD.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
evidently not political consensus proposal). would
that be routine darbaari-bhagidaari great-governance
or desperate resort to reform mantra to divert
attention from MCD Act violations / MCD mis-governance
by unstoppable grass-eating fence?
====MHA reply dated 31.01.06====
With reference to the your letter dated 31st January,
2006 on the subject noted above, I am to inform you
that a proposal received from the Chief Minister of
Delhi regarding division of the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD) into smaller municipal bodies, as
recommended by the Balakrishnan Committee and the
Virendra Prakash Committee, is under examination in
the Ministry of Home Affairs. No decision has so far
been taken in this regard.
========
> Part-II (i) of RTI Application deposited on 31.01.06
> in Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI
> ========
>
> Please refer to the news item on front page of HT
> dated 31.01.06 (text annexed) reporting a decision
> of
> MHA to consider / prepare a note about splitting
> MCD,
> to be discussed at a meeting chaired by the Minister
> later this week. I am unable to locate on MHA
> website
> any facts pertaining to this decision / formulation.
> I
> am also not in receipt of any information about
> reasons for the same as affected person in view of
> my
> representation dated 17.11.2005 to Dr KS Sugathan
> JS(UT). I request all relevant facts / reasons
> leading
> / pertaining to the said decision / formulation
> under
> s.6(1) r/w 48-hour proviso under s.7(1) of RTI Act,
> 2005, in view of the following:
>
> 1. In my representation of 17.11.05 to JS(UT) I had
> sought procedures for informing / urging Central
> Govt
> opinion in regard to MCD, in effect contending that
> proliferation of unauthorised construction in Delhi
> in
> recent years owes not to structural infirmities in
> MCD
> but to preoccupation with the pursuit of
> unconstitutional USAID-sponsored Bill for
> alternative
> building regulation regime in name of reform. My
> letter was copied for information to MCD
> Commissioner
> and Delhi Govt Chief Secretary and to JS (DD) in
> MoUD
> (as building regulation functions of MCD fall under
> MoUD).
>
> 2. On 21.12.05 I wrote again to JS(UT) with
> reference
> to a news item about a high-level meeting called by
> Chief Secretary at which former MCD Commissioner had
> stated that byelaw business / MCD Amendment Bill had
> ensued only on basis of some oral order and 1 cr
> from
> USAID. In this I had reiterated that I perceive
> prima-facie collusion between USAID and MCD/Delhi
> Cabinet to subvert the constitutional authority of
> Govt of India and had enclosed the requests for
> information that I had made, under s.4(1)(d) of RTI
> Act, by e-mail to Delhi Govt and MoUD in this
> regard.
>
> 3. I have received thereafter the following
> communications:
> (a) Copy of F.No.13/102/2003/UD/Pt.file.II/14421 of
> 20.12.05 from Delhi Govt Dy.Secy (UD) to MCD
> Commissioner, forwarding copy of mine of 17.11.05
> "to
> take appropriate action at your end and furnish the
> ATR/comments to the representationist...".
> (b) Copy of no. D/925/EE(B)/HQ of 22.12.05 from MCD
> SE
> (Bldg.) HQ to RM Kapoor & Bimal Patel (private
> consultants engaged for the USAID-sponsored Bill),
> forwarding copy of mine of 17.11.05 "for
> consideration
> and further necessary action".
> (c) Copy of No.K-11013/29/2005-DDIB of 09.01.06 from
> Under Secy MoUD (Delhi Division) to MCD
> Commissioner,
> with approval of CPIO, enclosing my e-mail of
> 21.12.05
> mentioning "a high-level meeting regarding municipal
> law / byelaw reform. As this Ministry has no
> information on this subject, you are requested to
> take
> appropriate action in the matter in accordance with
> the provisions of the RTI Act".
>
> 4. After the forwarding of my letter dated 17.11.05
> to
> the USAID consultants (presumably as affected
> persons), I had reiterated my s.4(1)(d) requests on
> 29.12.05 to Delhi Govt Chief Secretary on 03.01.06
> to
> MoUD. I had not bothered MHA further since it had
> not
> responded to my letter of 17.11.05 and since
> building
> regulation in Delhi does not fall under its purview.
> Also developments pursuant to court orders for
> demolition of unauthorised (in terms of the existing
> building regulation regime) constructions, which MHA
> was reportedly monitoring, did reveal sufficiently
> the
> vested interests of Delhi Cabinet Ministers and
> others
> in a substitute regime and I assumed that MHA would
> view that in perspective of my letters (especially
> hypothesis of collusion to subvert authority of
> Central Govt). And the letter of 09.01.06 from MoUD
> to
> MCD has officially brought my matter in the purview
> of
> RTI Act (making MCD Commissioner himself deemed CPIO
> for it).
>
> 5. Now, without having replied to my letter of
> 17.11.05 for information of procedures for informing
> /
> urging Central Govt opinion in the matter of
> scurrilously attempted legislative amendment to
> building regulation functions of MCD and in pendency
> of my same matter under RTI Act proceedings
> involving
> MoUD & MCD, MHA has decided to consider a different
> approach to MCD law reform for the same purpose on
> basis of incidental remarks of the court in matters
> pertaining to MCD building regulation functions in
> which directions support my contentions. Apart from
> not informing me under s.4(1)(d) of reasons for its
> decision, MHA has also not published under s.4(1)(c)
> relevant facts of the same and it is not even clear
> why it is undertaking an exercise based on the
> building regulation functions of MCD that fall in
> purview of MoUD.
>
> Under the circumstances, I feel constrained to
> resort
> to s.6(1) r/w s.7(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
>
> ====
>
> Hindustan Times, Tuesday, January 31, 2006 (Front
> Page)
>
> Mutilate MCD
> MHA proposes smaller civic bodies
>
> RAJNISH Sharma
> New Delhi, January 30
>
> CONCERNED OVER the Delhi HC's directive to demolish
> unauthorised constructions and its criticism of the
> MCD's failure to check the proliferation of such
> structures, the Home Ministry is considering the
> idea
> of splitting the corporation into smaller civic
> agencies.
>
> According to sources, an internal note prepared by
> the
> ministry says the MCD should be split into nine
> separate agencies along the lines of the nine police
> and nine revenue districts in the Capital.
>
> Later this week, Home Minister Shivraj Patil will
> chair a meeting of ministry officials to discuss
> various aspects related to dividing the MCD.
>
> Ministry officials say a division will ensure better
> co-ordination among the three most important
> agencies
> - revenue, the police and the corporation.
>
> A ministry official says there is a strong case for
> splitting of the MCD.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com