Yesterday 11 March 2006 Times of India published public notice inviting
"members of the public with particular reference to representative
bodies/interest groups/NGOs in NCT Delhi to share their views on the issues
contained in the terms of reference".
Notice informs us about the Terms of the reference and is issued by the
Secretary of the Committee?? which is not known. Members of the Committee
are
Tejinder Khanna, former LG, Delhi, Syed Shafi, former Chief Planner, TCPO,
EFN Rebeiro, Director, AMDA, S.C.Vats, MLA Delhi and Harsh Vardhan, MLA,
Delhi.
you can email at tke-mud@xxxxxx
And in the court
http://www.liveindia.com/news/b.html
Demolitions: HC refrains from ruling Centre's application MCD for restoring
notification exempting Lal Dora areas from building bylaws
New Delhi, February 27
The Delhi High Court today refrained from passing any order on an
application moved by the Union Government seeking relief for minor violators
of building bylaws in the Capital.
A Division Bench of Justice Vijender Jain and Justice Rekha Sharma, which is
dealing with the ongoing demolition drive, however, issued notices to the
MCD and other parties for their replies on the Centre's application, and
posted the matter for hearing on March 22.
Appearing for the Centre, senior counsel Kailash Gambhir sought relief for
minor violators on the ground that the government had constituted a
high-powered committee with former Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Tejinder Khanna
to assess the magnitude of the problem and suggest a comprehensive strategy
to deal with the situation arising out of it.
..........
some info on experts
Prof Rebeiro was earlier projected in the media as architect on the
committee.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1415187.cms
He also was invited member for the team working for the USAID sponsored
building byelaws reform undertaken only on oral orders.
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00735.shtml
and I am told, his firm is currently working for two local area plans (
which is still a proposal in the proposed municipal bill); vasant vihar and
karol bagh to suggest 'area specific building byelawas'.
It was rumoured that he was planning to resign from various committees after
COA proceedings??
for comments of Mr. Shafi on demolitions
http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/portal/2006/03/374
and response of the mpisg
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00974.shtml
----- Original Message -----
From: "H U BIJLANI" <hubijlani@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Master plan issues in media" <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] RTI request: EFN Ribeiro / MoUD-MCD expert panel
> Full Marks even though Edgar is a good friend of mine and I hold him in
high
> esteem. In any case what are the credentials of other chaps in the panel?
> Have thy ever handled or controlled this activity at any stage and gaind
> personal experience to be able to handle this grave situation. Holding a
> position is one thing-being envolved in handling the issues as Nigam is
> doing today is anothr. H.U.Bijlani
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <js_dl_mud@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <coa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <cmrmcd@xxxxxxxxxx>; <dir-jnnurm-mud@xxxxxx>;
> <js_mud@xxxxxx>; <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:02 PM
> Subject: [mpisgmedia] RTI request: EFN Ribeiro / MoUD-MCD expert panel
>
>
> > Mr PK Pradhan,
> > JS (Delhi Division), MoUD
> >
> > Dear Mr Pradhan,
> >
> > I just noticed a news item on ToI web edition (posted
> > 14 Feb) about an MoUD nominated 5-member expert panel
> > to "look into the court driven demolitions" underway
> > in Delhi, quoting Mr Ajay Maken saying MoUD "will ask
> > MCD to file an affidavit in the court with the
> > proposed names":
> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1415187.cms
> > One of the 2 technical experts proposed is "EFN
> > Ribeiro, well-known architect". As far as I know, EFN
> > Ribeiro is no-more architect. Council of Architecture
> > barred him from practice last year. That would make
> > nominating him as Architect illegal in terms of the
> > Architects Act. This is for your information.
> >
> > For my information, please provide me facts of and
> > reasons for MoUD decision to nominate EFN Ribeiro as
> > expert in a Delhi matter - under s.4(1)(d) r/w
> > s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act, in view of the following:
> >
> > 1. EFN Ribeiro (with another) of Asso of urban
> > management & development agencies, AuMDA (which was
> > asso of metropolitan development authorities before he
> > became its director) is named first among Consultants
> > to MPD-2021. If that had been drafted as per
> > provisions the Act and MPD, no such panel would have
> > been needed. MPD-2021 is reportedly to be finalised
> > soon for MoUD approval. My applications of 01 Oct'05
> > under s.41(3) of DD Act and of 21 Dec'05 under
> > s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act about the Board for it have not
> > been disposed off.
> >
> > 2. EFN Ribeiro was Consultant to USAID-made MCD
> > Amendment Bill / new-byelaws exercise that claims also
> > MoUD support. The court orders are for enforcing
> > existing byelaws as per existing MCD Act. The conflict
> > is glaring and MoUD nomination of EFN Ribeiro
> > perplexing also because of transfer by MoUD to MCD of
> > my RTI query about the USAID-MCD exercise proceeding
> > from one oral order and 1 cr from USAID
> > (K-11013/29/2005-DDIB dated 09 Jan'06).
> >
> > 3. EFN Ribeiro's private firm is making for MCD Vasant
> > Vihar Local-Area-Plan for/by area-specific-byelaws,
> > with basis only in USAID-MCD Bill. This is assailed in
> > Rejoinder to MCD counter-affidavit in PIL for MPD
> > implementation for urban villages. MoUD has not
> > replied in that. MCD has not replied, in context of
> > that, to RTI requests about compliance of demolition
> > orders in respect of projects that PIL has shown are
> > unauthorised (but MPD-2021 / LAP could regularise).
> >
> > 4. EFN Ribeiro in an open-letter of 24 Aug'04 to MoUD
> > Secy (AuMDA patron), had claimed AuMDA had nothing to
> > do with MPD-2021 (which says otherwise) and that he
> > knew little about two Delhi Govt projects. I had said
> > in my letter of Jun'04 to MoUD Secy that these two are
> > ridge and riverbed violations of MPD-2001. I had
> > written to MoUD Secy because MoUD has MPD
> > responsibility and MPD-violating projects had been
> > honoured by one Indian Building Congress of which MoUD
> > Secy is patron. I do not know why EFN Ribeiro
> > (similarly honoured by that Congress, for a project in
> > Gujarat) wrote to MoUD Secy to defend/obfuscate Delhi
> > projects/violations that he said he knew little about
> > while also denying AuMDA role in MPD. I also do not
> > know if he conveyed to MoUD Secy my plannerly
> > clarifications to which he himself did not reply. MoUD
> > Secy also did not write to inform me of the
> > appropriate action that President's Sectt had asked
> > him (in Jun'04) to take on my letter in the matter.
> > Pendency of that was one of my objections to the
> > proposal of Sep'04 to regularise a commercial IT Park
> > built on the riverbed by DMRC (of which MoUD Secy is
> > Chairman). One of the Public Notices whose disposal is
> > impugned in my writ petition is that one.
> > Counter-affidavits show IT Park is fit case for
> > exemplary compliance of demolition orders.
> >
> > 5. The only writ petition I have ever filed on my own
> > behalf (the one mistaken for some PIL against a 6-Ha
> > IT Park) is targeted against subversion of the
> > planning process by authorities and attendant spawning
> > of unethical professional practices. In its
> > counter-affidavit MoUD has urged dismissal with costs.
> > I think I have far better grounds, of huge cost
> > already borne, to urge dismissal of those who take
> > from positions of authority in the Ministry of Urban
> > Development advantage of loose-characters in urban
> > development professions for extraneous pursuits - in
> > the instant case, in defiance of the authority of the
> > profession's Council and with apparent intent to
> > tamper with the authority of the Court.
> >
> > I also urge MoUD to publish / provide the following
> > information:
> > * particulars of all positions held by MoUD Secy,
> > whether Minister of State has charge of Delhi
> > Division, and names of all empanelled / appointed /
> > nominated experts having anything to do with functions
> > of Delhi Division
> > * view on my suggestion to designate DDA as JnNURM
> > SLNA for Delhi (as Delhi Govt, which refuses to accept
> > it has no mandate for city planning, has made now
> > typically puerile announcements of its own
> > Mission-Mode and CDP)
> > * reply to my RTI queries about JnNURM (now that MoUD
> > has completed empanelling consultants pursuant to its
> > JnNURM-CDP tender of Dec'05)
> > * reply to my RTI queries about USAID-MCD Bill (now
> > that MoUD has nominated EFN Ribeiro as its own expert
> > for purpose of advice to MCD and also empanelled for
> > JnNURM-CDP one of the two USAID consultant firms to
> > whom MCD had forwarded in Dec'05, for their
> > consideration and necessary action, my objection of
> > Nov'05 that led to the RTI query that MoUD transferred
> > to MCD in Jan'06)
> >
> > Perhaps I need to clarify I prefer s.4 of RTI Act
> > because it is non-adversarial, stipulating neither
> > timeframe nor penalties. Prof Ribeiro could explain
> > better than I why those trained to explore the immense
> > potential of rigidly bound but veritably limitless
> > flexibilities of framework based planning prefer
> > non-adversarial approaches, regardless of their
> > motives. Apropos motives I read, in a situation of
> > planning practice regulated not by professional law
> > but by planning law, MoUD responsibility - heightened
> > in Delhi by the Constitution and at the moment by
> > GATS. From replies to RTI queries about GATS I gather
> > MoUD is sole valid stakeholder being consulted about
> > urban planning services / implications for other
> > services. I wish you clarity for this unenviable task.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> >
> > cc:
> > President, Council of Architecture
> > for information wrt to letter of Jun'04 about IBC
> > Awards, at:
> > http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000194.shtml
> >
> > Commissioner, MCD
> > for information wrt letters re Bill and demolition
> > drive, last at:
> > http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00921.shtml
> >
> > Sh M Rajamani, JS (UD) / CPIO MoUD
> > for information in continuation of prior RTI requests
> >
> > Sh A K Mehta, Director, MoUD
> > for information in continuation of prior e-mails re
> > JnNURM
> >
> > azplan
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia + Planning
collaborative at http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 2/17/06
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/06
"members of the public with particular reference to representative
bodies/interest groups/NGOs in NCT Delhi to share their views on the issues
contained in the terms of reference".
Notice informs us about the Terms of the reference and is issued by the
Secretary of the Committee?? which is not known. Members of the Committee
are
Tejinder Khanna, former LG, Delhi, Syed Shafi, former Chief Planner, TCPO,
EFN Rebeiro, Director, AMDA, S.C.Vats, MLA Delhi and Harsh Vardhan, MLA,
Delhi.
you can email at tke-mud@xxxxxx
And in the court
http://www.liveindia.com/news/b.html
Demolitions: HC refrains from ruling Centre's application MCD for restoring
notification exempting Lal Dora areas from building bylaws
New Delhi, February 27
The Delhi High Court today refrained from passing any order on an
application moved by the Union Government seeking relief for minor violators
of building bylaws in the Capital.
A Division Bench of Justice Vijender Jain and Justice Rekha Sharma, which is
dealing with the ongoing demolition drive, however, issued notices to the
MCD and other parties for their replies on the Centre's application, and
posted the matter for hearing on March 22.
Appearing for the Centre, senior counsel Kailash Gambhir sought relief for
minor violators on the ground that the government had constituted a
high-powered committee with former Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Tejinder Khanna
to assess the magnitude of the problem and suggest a comprehensive strategy
to deal with the situation arising out of it.
..........
some info on experts
Prof Rebeiro was earlier projected in the media as architect on the
committee.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1415187.cms
He also was invited member for the team working for the USAID sponsored
building byelaws reform undertaken only on oral orders.
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00735.shtml
and I am told, his firm is currently working for two local area plans (
which is still a proposal in the proposed municipal bill); vasant vihar and
karol bagh to suggest 'area specific building byelawas'.
It was rumoured that he was planning to resign from various committees after
COA proceedings??
for comments of Mr. Shafi on demolitions
http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/portal/2006/03/374
and response of the mpisg
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00974.shtml
----- Original Message -----
From: "H U BIJLANI" <hubijlani@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Master plan issues in media" <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] RTI request: EFN Ribeiro / MoUD-MCD expert panel
> Full Marks even though Edgar is a good friend of mine and I hold him in
high
> esteem. In any case what are the credentials of other chaps in the panel?
> Have thy ever handled or controlled this activity at any stage and gaind
> personal experience to be able to handle this grave situation. Holding a
> position is one thing-being envolved in handling the issues as Nigam is
> doing today is anothr. H.U.Bijlani
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <js_dl_mud@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <coa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <cmrmcd@xxxxxxxxxx>; <dir-jnnurm-mud@xxxxxx>;
> <js_mud@xxxxxx>; <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:02 PM
> Subject: [mpisgmedia] RTI request: EFN Ribeiro / MoUD-MCD expert panel
>
>
> > Mr PK Pradhan,
> > JS (Delhi Division), MoUD
> >
> > Dear Mr Pradhan,
> >
> > I just noticed a news item on ToI web edition (posted
> > 14 Feb) about an MoUD nominated 5-member expert panel
> > to "look into the court driven demolitions" underway
> > in Delhi, quoting Mr Ajay Maken saying MoUD "will ask
> > MCD to file an affidavit in the court with the
> > proposed names":
> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1415187.cms
> > One of the 2 technical experts proposed is "EFN
> > Ribeiro, well-known architect". As far as I know, EFN
> > Ribeiro is no-more architect. Council of Architecture
> > barred him from practice last year. That would make
> > nominating him as Architect illegal in terms of the
> > Architects Act. This is for your information.
> >
> > For my information, please provide me facts of and
> > reasons for MoUD decision to nominate EFN Ribeiro as
> > expert in a Delhi matter - under s.4(1)(d) r/w
> > s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act, in view of the following:
> >
> > 1. EFN Ribeiro (with another) of Asso of urban
> > management & development agencies, AuMDA (which was
> > asso of metropolitan development authorities before he
> > became its director) is named first among Consultants
> > to MPD-2021. If that had been drafted as per
> > provisions the Act and MPD, no such panel would have
> > been needed. MPD-2021 is reportedly to be finalised
> > soon for MoUD approval. My applications of 01 Oct'05
> > under s.41(3) of DD Act and of 21 Dec'05 under
> > s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act about the Board for it have not
> > been disposed off.
> >
> > 2. EFN Ribeiro was Consultant to USAID-made MCD
> > Amendment Bill / new-byelaws exercise that claims also
> > MoUD support. The court orders are for enforcing
> > existing byelaws as per existing MCD Act. The conflict
> > is glaring and MoUD nomination of EFN Ribeiro
> > perplexing also because of transfer by MoUD to MCD of
> > my RTI query about the USAID-MCD exercise proceeding
> > from one oral order and 1 cr from USAID
> > (K-11013/29/2005-DDIB dated 09 Jan'06).
> >
> > 3. EFN Ribeiro's private firm is making for MCD Vasant
> > Vihar Local-Area-Plan for/by area-specific-byelaws,
> > with basis only in USAID-MCD Bill. This is assailed in
> > Rejoinder to MCD counter-affidavit in PIL for MPD
> > implementation for urban villages. MoUD has not
> > replied in that. MCD has not replied, in context of
> > that, to RTI requests about compliance of demolition
> > orders in respect of projects that PIL has shown are
> > unauthorised (but MPD-2021 / LAP could regularise).
> >
> > 4. EFN Ribeiro in an open-letter of 24 Aug'04 to MoUD
> > Secy (AuMDA patron), had claimed AuMDA had nothing to
> > do with MPD-2021 (which says otherwise) and that he
> > knew little about two Delhi Govt projects. I had said
> > in my letter of Jun'04 to MoUD Secy that these two are
> > ridge and riverbed violations of MPD-2001. I had
> > written to MoUD Secy because MoUD has MPD
> > responsibility and MPD-violating projects had been
> > honoured by one Indian Building Congress of which MoUD
> > Secy is patron. I do not know why EFN Ribeiro
> > (similarly honoured by that Congress, for a project in
> > Gujarat) wrote to MoUD Secy to defend/obfuscate Delhi
> > projects/violations that he said he knew little about
> > while also denying AuMDA role in MPD. I also do not
> > know if he conveyed to MoUD Secy my plannerly
> > clarifications to which he himself did not reply. MoUD
> > Secy also did not write to inform me of the
> > appropriate action that President's Sectt had asked
> > him (in Jun'04) to take on my letter in the matter.
> > Pendency of that was one of my objections to the
> > proposal of Sep'04 to regularise a commercial IT Park
> > built on the riverbed by DMRC (of which MoUD Secy is
> > Chairman). One of the Public Notices whose disposal is
> > impugned in my writ petition is that one.
> > Counter-affidavits show IT Park is fit case for
> > exemplary compliance of demolition orders.
> >
> > 5. The only writ petition I have ever filed on my own
> > behalf (the one mistaken for some PIL against a 6-Ha
> > IT Park) is targeted against subversion of the
> > planning process by authorities and attendant spawning
> > of unethical professional practices. In its
> > counter-affidavit MoUD has urged dismissal with costs.
> > I think I have far better grounds, of huge cost
> > already borne, to urge dismissal of those who take
> > from positions of authority in the Ministry of Urban
> > Development advantage of loose-characters in urban
> > development professions for extraneous pursuits - in
> > the instant case, in defiance of the authority of the
> > profession's Council and with apparent intent to
> > tamper with the authority of the Court.
> >
> > I also urge MoUD to publish / provide the following
> > information:
> > * particulars of all positions held by MoUD Secy,
> > whether Minister of State has charge of Delhi
> > Division, and names of all empanelled / appointed /
> > nominated experts having anything to do with functions
> > of Delhi Division
> > * view on my suggestion to designate DDA as JnNURM
> > SLNA for Delhi (as Delhi Govt, which refuses to accept
> > it has no mandate for city planning, has made now
> > typically puerile announcements of its own
> > Mission-Mode and CDP)
> > * reply to my RTI queries about JnNURM (now that MoUD
> > has completed empanelling consultants pursuant to its
> > JnNURM-CDP tender of Dec'05)
> > * reply to my RTI queries about USAID-MCD Bill (now
> > that MoUD has nominated EFN Ribeiro as its own expert
> > for purpose of advice to MCD and also empanelled for
> > JnNURM-CDP one of the two USAID consultant firms to
> > whom MCD had forwarded in Dec'05, for their
> > consideration and necessary action, my objection of
> > Nov'05 that led to the RTI query that MoUD transferred
> > to MCD in Jan'06)
> >
> > Perhaps I need to clarify I prefer s.4 of RTI Act
> > because it is non-adversarial, stipulating neither
> > timeframe nor penalties. Prof Ribeiro could explain
> > better than I why those trained to explore the immense
> > potential of rigidly bound but veritably limitless
> > flexibilities of framework based planning prefer
> > non-adversarial approaches, regardless of their
> > motives. Apropos motives I read, in a situation of
> > planning practice regulated not by professional law
> > but by planning law, MoUD responsibility - heightened
> > in Delhi by the Constitution and at the moment by
> > GATS. From replies to RTI queries about GATS I gather
> > MoUD is sole valid stakeholder being consulted about
> > urban planning services / implications for other
> > services. I wish you clarity for this unenviable task.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> >
> > cc:
> > President, Council of Architecture
> > for information wrt to letter of Jun'04 about IBC
> > Awards, at:
> > http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000194.shtml
> >
> > Commissioner, MCD
> > for information wrt letters re Bill and demolition
> > drive, last at:
> > http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00921.shtml
> >
> > Sh M Rajamani, JS (UD) / CPIO MoUD
> > for information in continuation of prior RTI requests
> >
> > Sh A K Mehta, Director, MoUD
> > for information in continuation of prior e-mails re
> > JnNURM
> >
> > azplan
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia + Planning
collaborative at http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 2/17/06
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/06