Sh BK Gupta
Dy.C.L.A, Legal Wing, DDA
Dear Sh Gupta,
I am in receipt (by courier on 11.02.06) of letter
No.F.12(1)/2005/RTI/DDA/23 dated 07.02.06 from
Dy.Director (RTI) saying: "Please refer to your letter
dated 28/12/05 (E-mail) addressed to L.G., Delhi on
the subject noted above. In this connection, I am to
inform you that your letter (in original) has been
sent to the concerned Public Information Officer...".
It is copied to you as "(PIO concerned) along with the
application referred to above (in original) with the
request that necessary action may be taken at directly
the earliest".
I am a bit puzzled by RTI procedures in DDA and not
sure if Dy Director (RTI) (to whom I have not myself
written) had all the facts about this matter, which
are as follows: My e-mail of 28.12.05 was RTI request
to LG Sectt PIO & AA for information under s.4(1)(d)
r/w s.4(1)(c) about status of compliance of directions
for LG / DDA Chairman in three High Court judgments. I
received intimation of its transfer to DDA VC by
e-mail of 13.01.06:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00827.shtml
Thereafter, certain schemes in conflict with orders
mentioned in my RTI request about compliance were
announced. On 20 & 29.01.06 I made RTI requests under
s.4(1)(d) about those and on 30.01.06 wrote to LG
Sectt (which e-mail in reply of 02.01.06 is included
this message).
On 30.01.06 I also converted my request of 28.12.05 to
s.6 by depositing with fee an application to DDA VC
(deemed PIO by transfer of 13.01.06). DDA VC has not
transferred that, which I greatly appreciate since the
information requested is currently of greatest value
to the quasi-judicial purposes of the Board of Enquiry
& Hearing for MPD-2021 (of which he is chairman) and
the Committee for court orders for the riverbed (of
which he is member).
My request of 28.12.05 was originally under s.4(1)(d),
which is for suo-motu disclosure with no time frame or
penalties stipulated. If I had made it to DDA I would
have made it to Legal Wing, bit I made it to LG Sectt
as information published in terms of s.4(1)(b) did not
indicate DDA role in court orders for LG. I am
grateful to Dy Director (RTI) for bringing my original
request to your attention for earliest action and hope
it will also be of some use to Legal Wing in deciding
s.4 priorities to give effect to RTI Act.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information re requests of 28.12.05 & 20.01.06
* Sh Dinesh Rai, DDA Vice Chairman
* Sh AK Jain, Commissioner (Planning)
* Sh RK Vats, Commissioner (LM)
* Sh PV Mahashabdey, Director (MPPR)
* Sh PM Parate, Director (RYP)
* Sh SP Padhy, Director (LM)
* [request to fwd to] Dy Director (RTI)
--- piolg.delhi@xxxxxx wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:18:35 +0530 (IST)
> Subject: Re: [MOST URGENT] Re: RTI request re
> compliance of High Court
> directions for LG
> From: piolg.delhi@xxxxxx
> To: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> Your request has been forwarded to VC, DDA for
> appropriate action. Please
> find enclosed PDF file.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Addl Secy & PS to LG
>
>
>
> > LG Sectt, Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Dear Sir,
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > I am writing to urge LG Sectt to direct the DDA
> and
>
>
>
> > the Police to refrain from any precipitate
> demolition
>
>
>
> > on the embankment of the Yamuna in view of my
> pending
>
>
>
> > RTI application / content thereof.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Please refer to your communication U.O. No.
>
>
>
> > RTI/05/RN/-- copied to me by e-mail dated
> 13.01.06,
>
>
>
> > about transfer of my request dated 28.12.05 (for
>
>
>
> > information under s.4(1)(d) about status of
> compliance
>
>
>
> > of High Court directions for LG in three judgments
>
>
>
>
> > dated 16.09.02, 17.12.04 and 25.11.05) to DDA Vice
>
>
>
>
> > Chairman with request "that an appropriate action
> as
>
>
>
> > per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 in
> the
>
>
>
> > matter be taken under intimation to this
> Secretariat
>
>
>
> > within a stipulated time frame". By e-mail of
> 15.01.06
>
>
>
> > I had sought clarification about time frame
> stipulated
>
>
>
> > for s.4(1)(d) by rules that LG is Competent
> Authority
>
>
>
> > to make. Meanwhile:
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > On Thursday 19.01.06 DDA employees announced,
>
>
>
> > informally at a site on the riverbed, a decision
> for
>
>
>
> > precipitate action in conflict with court orders
> for
>
>
>
> > LG (DDA Chairman) in judgments of 17.12.04 and
>
>
>
> > 25.11.05, about which I informed LG Sectt by copy
> of
>
>
>
> > my RTI request of 20.01.06 to DDA officials:
>
>
>
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00859.shtml
>
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > In press reports of Saturday 28.01.06 Delhi urban
>
>
>
> > development minister has announced some plan for
>
>
>
> > riverbed clearance & re-housing, etc, in clear
>
>
>
> > conflict with aforesaid court orders for LG, as
> set
>
>
>
> > out in my RTI request to Dr Walia:
>
>
>
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00900.shtml
>
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > DMRC has announced through press reports of 26 &
>
>
>
> > 27.01.06 ahead-of-schedule riverbed activity on
>
>
>
> > phase-2 (in pendency of EIA for which it has
> issued
>
>
>
> > public notice) and on IT Park on riverbed (in
> pendency
>
>
>
> > of my writ petition, in which DDA through its
> Chairman
>
>
>
> > is respondent no.4 and which refers to judgment of
>
>
>
>
> > 17.12.04 in a DMRC petition).
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > For information of LG Sectt, DMRC is not
> implementing
>
>
>
> > RTI Act and RTI requests made to DDA (including
>
>
>
> > 48-hour requests for information liable to be
>
>
>
> > disclosed under s.4(1)(c) and s.4(1)(d) about its
>
>
>
> > decision for precipitate action in conflict with
>
>
>
> > pending matters and responses to Public Notice,
>
>
>
> > including for IT Park) in the last week have not
> been
>
>
>
> > answered.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > While I am grateful to you for at least
> transferring
>
>
>
> > my RTI request, I urge you to appreciate the
>
>
>
> > desperation that drives ordinary citizens like
> myself
>
>
>
> > to resort to RTI to ask about compliance of High
> Court
>
>
>
> > directions to LG, while authorities and ministers
>
>
>
> > perpetuate illegalities on the riverbed in name,
> in
>
>
>
> > vain, of other court orders. I have made numerous
>
>
>
> > representations to LG about this state of affairs
> in
>
>
>
> > general and the riverbed in particular. I now seek
>
>
>
>
> > directions against precipitate action.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Yours sincerely
>
>
>
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Dy.C.L.A, Legal Wing, DDA
Dear Sh Gupta,
I am in receipt (by courier on 11.02.06) of letter
No.F.12(1)/2005/RTI/DDA/23 dated 07.02.06 from
Dy.Director (RTI) saying: "Please refer to your letter
dated 28/12/05 (E-mail) addressed to L.G., Delhi on
the subject noted above. In this connection, I am to
inform you that your letter (in original) has been
sent to the concerned Public Information Officer...".
It is copied to you as "(PIO concerned) along with the
application referred to above (in original) with the
request that necessary action may be taken at directly
the earliest".
I am a bit puzzled by RTI procedures in DDA and not
sure if Dy Director (RTI) (to whom I have not myself
written) had all the facts about this matter, which
are as follows: My e-mail of 28.12.05 was RTI request
to LG Sectt PIO & AA for information under s.4(1)(d)
r/w s.4(1)(c) about status of compliance of directions
for LG / DDA Chairman in three High Court judgments. I
received intimation of its transfer to DDA VC by
e-mail of 13.01.06:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00827.shtml
Thereafter, certain schemes in conflict with orders
mentioned in my RTI request about compliance were
announced. On 20 & 29.01.06 I made RTI requests under
s.4(1)(d) about those and on 30.01.06 wrote to LG
Sectt (which e-mail in reply of 02.01.06 is included
this message).
On 30.01.06 I also converted my request of 28.12.05 to
s.6 by depositing with fee an application to DDA VC
(deemed PIO by transfer of 13.01.06). DDA VC has not
transferred that, which I greatly appreciate since the
information requested is currently of greatest value
to the quasi-judicial purposes of the Board of Enquiry
& Hearing for MPD-2021 (of which he is chairman) and
the Committee for court orders for the riverbed (of
which he is member).
My request of 28.12.05 was originally under s.4(1)(d),
which is for suo-motu disclosure with no time frame or
penalties stipulated. If I had made it to DDA I would
have made it to Legal Wing, bit I made it to LG Sectt
as information published in terms of s.4(1)(b) did not
indicate DDA role in court orders for LG. I am
grateful to Dy Director (RTI) for bringing my original
request to your attention for earliest action and hope
it will also be of some use to Legal Wing in deciding
s.4 priorities to give effect to RTI Act.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: for information re requests of 28.12.05 & 20.01.06
* Sh Dinesh Rai, DDA Vice Chairman
* Sh AK Jain, Commissioner (Planning)
* Sh RK Vats, Commissioner (LM)
* Sh PV Mahashabdey, Director (MPPR)
* Sh PM Parate, Director (RYP)
* Sh SP Padhy, Director (LM)
* [request to fwd to] Dy Director (RTI)
--- piolg.delhi@xxxxxx wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:18:35 +0530 (IST)
> Subject: Re: [MOST URGENT] Re: RTI request re
> compliance of High Court
> directions for LG
> From: piolg.delhi@xxxxxx
> To: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> Your request has been forwarded to VC, DDA for
> appropriate action. Please
> find enclosed PDF file.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Addl Secy & PS to LG
>
>
>
> > LG Sectt, Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Dear Sir,
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > I am writing to urge LG Sectt to direct the DDA
> and
>
>
>
> > the Police to refrain from any precipitate
> demolition
>
>
>
> > on the embankment of the Yamuna in view of my
> pending
>
>
>
> > RTI application / content thereof.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Please refer to your communication U.O. No.
>
>
>
> > RTI/05/RN/-- copied to me by e-mail dated
> 13.01.06,
>
>
>
> > about transfer of my request dated 28.12.05 (for
>
>
>
> > information under s.4(1)(d) about status of
> compliance
>
>
>
> > of High Court directions for LG in three judgments
>
>
>
>
> > dated 16.09.02, 17.12.04 and 25.11.05) to DDA Vice
>
>
>
>
> > Chairman with request "that an appropriate action
> as
>
>
>
> > per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 in
> the
>
>
>
> > matter be taken under intimation to this
> Secretariat
>
>
>
> > within a stipulated time frame". By e-mail of
> 15.01.06
>
>
>
> > I had sought clarification about time frame
> stipulated
>
>
>
> > for s.4(1)(d) by rules that LG is Competent
> Authority
>
>
>
> > to make. Meanwhile:
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > On Thursday 19.01.06 DDA employees announced,
>
>
>
> > informally at a site on the riverbed, a decision
> for
>
>
>
> > precipitate action in conflict with court orders
> for
>
>
>
> > LG (DDA Chairman) in judgments of 17.12.04 and
>
>
>
> > 25.11.05, about which I informed LG Sectt by copy
> of
>
>
>
> > my RTI request of 20.01.06 to DDA officials:
>
>
>
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00859.shtml
>
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > In press reports of Saturday 28.01.06 Delhi urban
>
>
>
> > development minister has announced some plan for
>
>
>
> > riverbed clearance & re-housing, etc, in clear
>
>
>
> > conflict with aforesaid court orders for LG, as
> set
>
>
>
> > out in my RTI request to Dr Walia:
>
>
>
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00900.shtml
>
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > DMRC has announced through press reports of 26 &
>
>
>
> > 27.01.06 ahead-of-schedule riverbed activity on
>
>
>
> > phase-2 (in pendency of EIA for which it has
> issued
>
>
>
> > public notice) and on IT Park on riverbed (in
> pendency
>
>
>
> > of my writ petition, in which DDA through its
> Chairman
>
>
>
> > is respondent no.4 and which refers to judgment of
>
>
>
>
> > 17.12.04 in a DMRC petition).
>
>
>
> > *
>
>
>
> > For information of LG Sectt, DMRC is not
> implementing
>
>
>
> > RTI Act and RTI requests made to DDA (including
>
>
>
> > 48-hour requests for information liable to be
>
>
>
> > disclosed under s.4(1)(c) and s.4(1)(d) about its
>
>
>
> > decision for precipitate action in conflict with
>
>
>
> > pending matters and responses to Public Notice,
>
>
>
> > including for IT Park) in the last week have not
> been
>
>
>
> > answered.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > While I am grateful to you for at least
> transferring
>
>
>
> > my RTI request, I urge you to appreciate the
>
>
>
> > desperation that drives ordinary citizens like
> myself
>
>
>
> > to resort to RTI to ask about compliance of High
> Court
>
>
>
> > directions to LG, while authorities and ministers
>
>
>
> > perpetuate illegalities on the riverbed in name,
> in
>
>
>
> > vain, of other court orders. I have made numerous
>
>
>
> > representations to LG about this state of affairs
> in
>
>
>
> > general and the riverbed in particular. I now seek
>
>
>
>
> > directions against precipitate action.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Yours sincerely
>
>
>
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com