[mpisgmedia] villages and commercial use cases (court update)

The mpisg meharauli-mahipalpur PIL (by mpisg convener
- villages, Shiv Narayan ji, for master plan
entitlements of urbanized villages and against
unplanned projects jeopardizing them) and commercial
use PIL (filed by mpisg and representatives of vasant
kunj groups on it, challenging disposal of planned
commercial facility sites in residential areas for
unfettered up-market commercial use in context of
long-standing efforts to secure implementation of
master plan provisions, including by relocation of
hawkers, commercial use in residential premises, etc,
to planned sites meant for them) were listed yesterday
before DB of acting Chief Justice Vijender Jain and
Justice SN Agarwal.

In the meharauli-mahipalpur PIL the same bench (as
DB2) had directed on 22.03.06 MoUD to file reply by
next date of hearing and on 05.04.06 the same again
and that if counter affidavit is not filed MoUD
Secretary shall remain present in court. Our counsel,
Anupam Lal Das, pointed out that MoUD had not filed
reply. DDA counsel, Mr Jagmohan Sabharwal, said DDA
had filed counter-affidavit. MoUD counsel was not
present. Mr Jagmohan Sabharwal suggested last
opportunity be given to MoUD to file reply. Lordships
gave last opportunity, which Mr Jagmohan Sabharwal is
to convey to MoUD counsel. Anupam mentioned Vasant
Kunj Malls and Mr Jagmohan Sabharwal interrupted to
say Supreme Court had already stayed the construction
(in NGO PIL) and so they need not be taken up (for all
of 2004-2005 he had said that Supreme Court had
allowed construction, in ex-MP PIL based on ex-MP &
NGO PIL of 96, and so they need not be taken up).
Anupam continued, referring to EIA public notice for
the VK Malls pursuant to the stay by Supreme Court
that was published by Delhi Govt, which had not
replied on notice issued by High Court in our case.
Counsel for Delhi Govt was present. Lordships also
directed Delhi Govt to file reply.

In the commercial use PIL our counsel, Ruksana
Chowdhury, pointed out that notice had been issued in
October 2002 to see if any directions for future
guidance need be given, MoUD was subsequently
specifically directed to file reply and later the
court had recorded that it was not desirous of filing
reply. Since MoUD has now shown keen interest in the
issues of our PIL through its Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Act, 2006, Ruksana suggested it could be
asked to clarify its stand. Mr Jagmohan Sabharwal
interrupted to say that Supreme Court had issued the
previous day notice in a PIL challenging that (RWA-NGO
PIL challenging the Bill, reported by most papers in
the morning, next listed in July). Lordships said then
they would keep their hands off the Act. Ruksana asked
for the matters to be kept tagged, as MoUD
counter-affidavit in the other might clarify its
stand. Mr Sabharwal was agreeable to that. Both
matters have been listed together for next hearing -
on 5 September 2006.

=====

PS
Yesterday in some Social Jurist PIL directions were
given to Delhi Govt / MCD including, on request of SJ
/ Mr Ashok Agarwal, for consideration of his
suggestions and also for appointing NGO / civil
society representative on Zonal Committee (SJ / Mr
Ashok Agarwal is also on the free-seats committee of
Delhi Govt, which has not reverted to us on our
suggestions for compliance for order in mpisg PIL for
the master plan common school system). And in NGO PIL
on water bodies directions were given to DDA about
Mahipalpur and Kishangarh water bodies (issues also in
our PIL and other pending matters).


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Folow-ups
  • Re: [mpisgmedia] NGO-PIL for DDA dissolution (Del Spl Act on the double!)
    • From: Gita Dewan Verma
  • Partial thread listing: