Hi Gita,
Glad to know that DMRC is wasting public's money (laoned at usurious rates from Japanese Govt) seeking legal opinion on whether to seek compensation from you.
A company called hathaway cable tried that on me once - claiming Rs. 800 Cr damages (in a small causes suit valued at Rs. 300) for blocking set top boxes for cable tv under cas. The stbs are still rotting away in chennai port since last 3 years- so they have now stooped to going to the HC of Delhi to foist these unsafe and out of warranty boxes on the poor public of delhi.
Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The application for amending my writ petition to add
prayer for quashing notifications allowing
metro-property-development was allowed on 5.4.06.
Respondents have to file reply to the amended
petition.
They were keen to get vacated the stay granted on
27.7.05 on their recreation-amusement (tender to
license 15 Ha of riverbed for 15 years with reserve
bid price of 5 cr). They had brought files to show how
that was temporary. We could not see how. So they
could not get stay vacated. Next hearing is on 5.7.06
I saw lots of other things in their files that I
suppose it is improper to gossip about. But there was
one page that I think is my privilege to divulge. DMRC
MD had sought legal opinion about claiming from me
compensation for revenue loss due to the stay granted
by the court in my petition. (The legal advice given
was that is possible only if the court holds that my
petition is false and frivolous)
--- Gita Dewan Verma wrote:
> Notice was issued on 28 Feb to Respondents (DMRC,
> Delhi Govt, MoUD and DDA) in an application for
> amending my writ petition to add paras, grounds and
> prayer for quashing three notifications issued by
> MoUD
> to modify the Master Plan to enable
> metro-property-development at various sites in
> Delhi.
>
> The petition was filed on 7 April 05 for directions
> relating to disposal according to law of my duly
> filed
> responses to three public notices issued since 2002
> under s.11A of DD Act. I had not been heard on any
> of
> them and on one of the sites (Shastri Park Metro
> Depot
> on the riverbed) covered by all three, a commercial
> IT
> Park had got not only built but also inaugurated by
> bigwigs on 2 April 05.
>
> The notifications were revealed in
> counter-affidavits
> of August-September 05, with third (for IT Park) and
> corrigendum to first (for metroPD at
> Shahdra-TisHazari
> corridor stations, that had otherwise claimed no
> objections / suggestions were received) issued after
> the court had issued notice on 13 April 05. The
> amendment application was filed last week, with
> supplementary affidavit to bring on record start of
> construction of IT Park Block-2 last month and RTI
> replies received from DMRC and DDA this month that
> failed to provide other information and informed me
> that (only) IT Park is sub-judice (The last I found
> as
> insulting as the petition-provoking
> bigwigs-inauguration and turned to my wise and
> indulgent counsel Murali and Gopal for yet another
> impeccable translation of tantrum to civil
> procedure)
>
> I am unaware of other matters in which only IT Park
> is
> sub-judice. In my writ petition about s.11A
> violation
> to enable metroPD, counter-affidavits have revealed
> that IT Park is unauthorised construction without
> building permit, DUAC and MoEF clearances and land
> use
> change notification - all mandatory. I suspect all
> other metroPD is likewise, but Respondents have not
> been forthcoming with details of any other project
> (Delhi Govt has not been forthcoming with even
> counter-affidavit, though CM photos prettifying
> metroPD news also prettify my annexures). Even in
> response to my RTI Application for list of all
> metroPD
> projects with names of associated architects /
> planners, DMRC has named one project and its
> architects and told me that IT Park Block 1 & 2 are
> sub-judice. (Block-2 per se was not even mentioned
> in
> pleadings in my writ petition till my affidavit of
> last week and perhaps some PIL has been filed now).
>
> Respondents had not filed counter-affidavits on
> notice
> of 13.4.05 or further order of 23.5.05 granting
> their
> request for more time, but after order of 27.7.05
> restraining DMRC from finalising bids it had invited
> for 15 year temporary-license for seemingly
> Disneyland
> type temporary-constructions on 15 Ha of land it had
> taken on riverbed in name of Depot. Yesterday (after
> preliminaries of Gopal starting submissions about
> our
> application about notifications-quashing, Lordship
> asking Respondents for their view, Respondents
> insisting the petition had become infructuous since
> they had filed copies of notifications, Lordship
> clarifying it had not) DMRC counsel wanted (only)
> the
> stay on their recreation-amusement vacated.
>
> He said the temporary green project was good for
> preventing encroachment and was approved by LG and
> they had bids and wanted to award work. (Obviously,
> the Sultangarhi judgment of 16.9.2002 filed as
> annexure in my petition has escaped their notice. In
> that a DB headed by Chief Justice of the High Court
> had scoffed at the encroachment-prevention benefit
> claims offered on behalf of DDA by Arun Jaitley to
> not
> only stop the mega-housing started without due
> process
> of s.11A and environmental clearances but also to
> direct same LG to inquire into how it started, to
> prevent identical illegalities).
>
> Lordship asked me to state my objections (our stay
> application, to which DMRC counsel was referring,
> had
> objected mainly on the grounds that they were
> issuing
> tenders without having replied to notice issued by
> the
> court). I said we had mentioned in Rejoinder that
> the
> tender was in violation of the
> no-further-development
> condition to which land use change for IT Park at
> Depot site was subject as per the notification they
> had filed later and that development is defined in
> DD
> Act. DMRC counsel said they were only doing
> temporary
> green for encroachment prevention and Lordship asked
> me why I found that objectionable, given that
> development is defined in the Act broadly. I said
> they
> had not disclosed details of their temporary green
> and
> their tender reserve price suggested it might not be
> so. Lordship agreed they had not disclosed details
> and
> asked DMRC counsel if they meant by Rides
> merry-go-rounds with just grouting or Appu Ghar type
> things with constructions. DMRC counsel was not sure
> and Lordship asked me if I if I found
> merry-go-rounds
> problematic. I said not if they are part of
> gardening
> in metro depot but if they are part of commercial
> development then that must conform to the Plan and
> the
> proceeds must accrue to the Fund of the DDA under DD
> Act, the core of my responses to all three Public
> Notices. Lordship nodded and started dictating the
> order.
>
> Gopal said he wanted to make some submissions (we
> wanted to mention Block-2). Lordship had just
> finished
> saying Notice, etc, and ribbed us with
> oh-you-do-not-want-notice and we said oh-we-do and
> DMRC counsel said he wanted stay vacated. Lordship
> told us all he was giving notice and short date and
> added that DMRC counsel should bring relevant
> records
> about details of their recreation-amusement and that
> I
> be given also inspection of the same, for fixing
> which
> my counsel will write to DMRC counsel.
>
> We (especially Gopal) are wee-bit sad about not
> having
> been able to fuss about IT Park Block-2, but
> delighted
> with the order. We look forward to views on our
> grounds for amending and to details of the
> recreation-amusement they are so keen on.
>
> I was also amused when Mr Mukul Rohtagi questioned
> the
> other day, on behalf of Reliance in its petition
> against Airports privatisation, competence of DMRC
> MD
> Sreedharan. Mr Rohtagi had appeared for DMRC at
> first
> two hearings in my petition and argued in the second
> one that IT Park on riverbed is not on riverbed
> because it is on dry land. That nugget is from a
> letter from DMRC MD Sreedharan to CWC, subsequently
> filed with DMRC counter-affidavit, strangely as
> evidence of CWC clearance. (btw, the broad issues of
> private development for transport infrastructure
> finance are more comprehensively raised by metroPD
> as
> an approach than by particular tenders for airport
> privatisation or, for that matter, for
> recreation-amusement with merry-go-rounds or other
> Rides justified on basis of extraneous and purported
> benefits like encroachment prevention. Perhaps the
> question of competence of all-purpose idols is also
> better scrutinised from perspective of approaches
> rather than specific instances).
>
> My writ petition is only for reliefs in respect of
> s.11A violations. I was entitled to a proper hearing
> by a duly constituted Board for Enquiry and Hearing
> before the notifications were issued. I was denied
> that hearing thrice on the same issue, despite
> having
> sought it also through applications under s.41(3) to
> MoUD, representations to President and CJI and Lok
> Sabha Standing Committee and CVC and also to LG in
> context of High Court orders for him in other
> matters.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
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/
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Glad to know that DMRC is wasting public's money (laoned at usurious rates from Japanese Govt) seeking legal opinion on whether to seek compensation from you.
A company called hathaway cable tried that on me once - claiming Rs. 800 Cr damages (in a small causes suit valued at Rs. 300) for blocking set top boxes for cable tv under cas. The stbs are still rotting away in chennai port since last 3 years- so they have now stooped to going to the HC of Delhi to foist these unsafe and out of warranty boxes on the poor public of delhi.
Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The application for amending my writ petition to add
prayer for quashing notifications allowing
metro-property-development was allowed on 5.4.06.
Respondents have to file reply to the amended
petition.
They were keen to get vacated the stay granted on
27.7.05 on their recreation-amusement (tender to
license 15 Ha of riverbed for 15 years with reserve
bid price of 5 cr). They had brought files to show how
that was temporary. We could not see how. So they
could not get stay vacated. Next hearing is on 5.7.06
I saw lots of other things in their files that I
suppose it is improper to gossip about. But there was
one page that I think is my privilege to divulge. DMRC
MD had sought legal opinion about claiming from me
compensation for revenue loss due to the stay granted
by the court in my petition. (The legal advice given
was that is possible only if the court holds that my
petition is false and frivolous)
--- Gita Dewan Verma wrote:
> Notice was issued on 28 Feb to Respondents (DMRC,
> Delhi Govt, MoUD and DDA) in an application for
> amending my writ petition to add paras, grounds and
> prayer for quashing three notifications issued by
> MoUD
> to modify the Master Plan to enable
> metro-property-development at various sites in
> Delhi.
>
> The petition was filed on 7 April 05 for directions
> relating to disposal according to law of my duly
> filed
> responses to three public notices issued since 2002
> under s.11A of DD Act. I had not been heard on any
> of
> them and on one of the sites (Shastri Park Metro
> Depot
> on the riverbed) covered by all three, a commercial
> IT
> Park had got not only built but also inaugurated by
> bigwigs on 2 April 05.
>
> The notifications were revealed in
> counter-affidavits
> of August-September 05, with third (for IT Park) and
> corrigendum to first (for metroPD at
> Shahdra-TisHazari
> corridor stations, that had otherwise claimed no
> objections / suggestions were received) issued after
> the court had issued notice on 13 April 05. The
> amendment application was filed last week, with
> supplementary affidavit to bring on record start of
> construction of IT Park Block-2 last month and RTI
> replies received from DMRC and DDA this month that
> failed to provide other information and informed me
> that (only) IT Park is sub-judice (The last I found
> as
> insulting as the petition-provoking
> bigwigs-inauguration and turned to my wise and
> indulgent counsel Murali and Gopal for yet another
> impeccable translation of tantrum to civil
> procedure)
>
> I am unaware of other matters in which only IT Park
> is
> sub-judice. In my writ petition about s.11A
> violation
> to enable metroPD, counter-affidavits have revealed
> that IT Park is unauthorised construction without
> building permit, DUAC and MoEF clearances and land
> use
> change notification - all mandatory. I suspect all
> other metroPD is likewise, but Respondents have not
> been forthcoming with details of any other project
> (Delhi Govt has not been forthcoming with even
> counter-affidavit, though CM photos prettifying
> metroPD news also prettify my annexures). Even in
> response to my RTI Application for list of all
> metroPD
> projects with names of associated architects /
> planners, DMRC has named one project and its
> architects and told me that IT Park Block 1 & 2 are
> sub-judice. (Block-2 per se was not even mentioned
> in
> pleadings in my writ petition till my affidavit of
> last week and perhaps some PIL has been filed now).
>
> Respondents had not filed counter-affidavits on
> notice
> of 13.4.05 or further order of 23.5.05 granting
> their
> request for more time, but after order of 27.7.05
> restraining DMRC from finalising bids it had invited
> for 15 year temporary-license for seemingly
> Disneyland
> type temporary-constructions on 15 Ha of land it had
> taken on riverbed in name of Depot. Yesterday (after
> preliminaries of Gopal starting submissions about
> our
> application about notifications-quashing, Lordship
> asking Respondents for their view, Respondents
> insisting the petition had become infructuous since
> they had filed copies of notifications, Lordship
> clarifying it had not) DMRC counsel wanted (only)
> the
> stay on their recreation-amusement vacated.
>
> He said the temporary green project was good for
> preventing encroachment and was approved by LG and
> they had bids and wanted to award work. (Obviously,
> the Sultangarhi judgment of 16.9.2002 filed as
> annexure in my petition has escaped their notice. In
> that a DB headed by Chief Justice of the High Court
> had scoffed at the encroachment-prevention benefit
> claims offered on behalf of DDA by Arun Jaitley to
> not
> only stop the mega-housing started without due
> process
> of s.11A and environmental clearances but also to
> direct same LG to inquire into how it started, to
> prevent identical illegalities).
>
> Lordship asked me to state my objections (our stay
> application, to which DMRC counsel was referring,
> had
> objected mainly on the grounds that they were
> issuing
> tenders without having replied to notice issued by
> the
> court). I said we had mentioned in Rejoinder that
> the
> tender was in violation of the
> no-further-development
> condition to which land use change for IT Park at
> Depot site was subject as per the notification they
> had filed later and that development is defined in
> DD
> Act. DMRC counsel said they were only doing
> temporary
> green for encroachment prevention and Lordship asked
> me why I found that objectionable, given that
> development is defined in the Act broadly. I said
> they
> had not disclosed details of their temporary green
> and
> their tender reserve price suggested it might not be
> so. Lordship agreed they had not disclosed details
> and
> asked DMRC counsel if they meant by Rides
> merry-go-rounds with just grouting or Appu Ghar type
> things with constructions. DMRC counsel was not sure
> and Lordship asked me if I if I found
> merry-go-rounds
> problematic. I said not if they are part of
> gardening
> in metro depot but if they are part of commercial
> development then that must conform to the Plan and
> the
> proceeds must accrue to the Fund of the DDA under DD
> Act, the core of my responses to all three Public
> Notices. Lordship nodded and started dictating the
> order.
>
> Gopal said he wanted to make some submissions (we
> wanted to mention Block-2). Lordship had just
> finished
> saying Notice, etc, and ribbed us with
> oh-you-do-not-want-notice and we said oh-we-do and
> DMRC counsel said he wanted stay vacated. Lordship
> told us all he was giving notice and short date and
> added that DMRC counsel should bring relevant
> records
> about details of their recreation-amusement and that
> I
> be given also inspection of the same, for fixing
> which
> my counsel will write to DMRC counsel.
>
> We (especially Gopal) are wee-bit sad about not
> having
> been able to fuss about IT Park Block-2, but
> delighted
> with the order. We look forward to views on our
> grounds for amending and to details of the
> recreation-amusement they are so keen on.
>
> I was also amused when Mr Mukul Rohtagi questioned
> the
> other day, on behalf of Reliance in its petition
> against Airports privatisation, competence of DMRC
> MD
> Sreedharan. Mr Rohtagi had appeared for DMRC at
> first
> two hearings in my petition and argued in the second
> one that IT Park on riverbed is not on riverbed
> because it is on dry land. That nugget is from a
> letter from DMRC MD Sreedharan to CWC, subsequently
> filed with DMRC counter-affidavit, strangely as
> evidence of CWC clearance. (btw, the broad issues of
> private development for transport infrastructure
> finance are more comprehensively raised by metroPD
> as
> an approach than by particular tenders for airport
> privatisation or, for that matter, for
> recreation-amusement with merry-go-rounds or other
> Rides justified on basis of extraneous and purported
> benefits like encroachment prevention. Perhaps the
> question of competence of all-purpose idols is also
> better scrutinised from perspective of approaches
> rather than specific instances).
>
> My writ petition is only for reliefs in respect of
> s.11A violations. I was entitled to a proper hearing
> by a duly constituted Board for Enquiry and Hearing
> before the notifications were issued. I was denied
> that hearing thrice on the same issue, despite
> having
> sought it also through applications under s.41(3) to
> MoUD, representations to President and CJI and Lok
> Sabha Standing Committee and CVC and also to LG in
> context of High Court orders for him in other
> matters.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
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/
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates.