I have an invitation for hearing tomorrow of my
response to the Public Notice for land use change for
the Games Village. Any one else has one?
This is the first hearing on a specific modification
since the one for Sultangarhi in Jan 03 and very
decent of DDA to be holding it: the Del Spl Act
empowers Maken or Reddy to, with or without appointing
committee of pliant experts or having publicized
meetings with bigwigs or bhagidaars, issue instead an
MoUD direction that DDA has been made duty-bound to
obey. (like Maken did that with his MLU notification
even without the Del Spl Act and with reliance
presumably on capital being que-breaking culture hub -
to my knowledge no bigwig or bhagidaar asked for the
humbly waiting-to-be-heard public notice and other
pending matters walas to be heard first).
For Games Village (and other world class items) I have
been suggesting since 2003 a site either elsewhere in
NCR or, if it must be in Delhi, part of the Safdarjang
District Park. In my response to the public notice for
land use change near Akshardham, I had made only
process suggestions and declined hearing opportunity
in view of the question of my right to be heard being
sub-judice in my writ petition against metroPD (and
now also in the one against the Tehkhand project). But
I am glad for the invitation / opportunity to press
some of my suggestions in view of the Del Spl Act.
My response, btw:
Mr VM Bansal
Pr Commissioner cum Secretary
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110070
Sub: Public Notice dt 28 February 2006 for land use
change at Akshardham: Suggestions
Sir,
By the above, the Authority of the DDA has invited
objections / suggestions on a proposal for change of
land use of 16 Ha between Akshardham Temple and river
Yamuna from 'recreational' to 'residential' and
'commercial'. The proposal is for Commonwealth Games
Village, another key for 'unlocking' the riverbed and
is eminently objectionable. However, issuance of
Public Notice at this stage makes it impossible to
object in non-adversarial constructive manner and
without creating unseemly controversy at cost of DDA.
While you have freely and consistently rejected my
suggestions and offers of support, I remain bound by
my plannerly duties of care to continue to make them,
especially now that the mandate of the DDA is under
threat. I am enclosing a description of your proposal
as seen from the perspective of my pending matters,
notably my WP(C) 6500/2005 and my (unanswered)
requests for information, made under section 4(1)(d)
of RTI Act pursuant to Authority Meeting of
19.10.2005. This is hastily written and I am at your
disposal for any clarifications. With reference to it,
I make the following suggestions:
(a) In further processing of this Public Notice:
* Rajniwas staff (rather than DDA staff) be used since
the scheme originated in Rajniwas (not in DDA) and is
beyond the scope of DDA powers under s.11A
* Lt Governor personally chair the Board for Enquiry &
Hearing, in view also of pendency of compliance of
enquiry direction in judgment dt 16.9.2002 in
WP(C)4978/2002
* Steps be taken to strictly ensure that no
mis-information is propagated / unseemly controversy
abetted by discourse outside ambit of Public Notice
process
(b) The Board for Enquiry & Hearing thoroughly enquire
into my response / enclosed description (I decline
hearing opportunity in pendency of my WP(C) 6500/2005)
I also suggest that you do not ignore this response,
like you have all my previous Public Notice responses,
and that you peruse both the pending matters in
context of which it is made.
I specifically seek intimation of notification as soon
as issued along with full disclosure about the
consideration of my suggestions and enquiry by the
Board into my response.
Sd/-
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
response to the Public Notice for land use change for
the Games Village. Any one else has one?
This is the first hearing on a specific modification
since the one for Sultangarhi in Jan 03 and very
decent of DDA to be holding it: the Del Spl Act
empowers Maken or Reddy to, with or without appointing
committee of pliant experts or having publicized
meetings with bigwigs or bhagidaars, issue instead an
MoUD direction that DDA has been made duty-bound to
obey. (like Maken did that with his MLU notification
even without the Del Spl Act and with reliance
presumably on capital being que-breaking culture hub -
to my knowledge no bigwig or bhagidaar asked for the
humbly waiting-to-be-heard public notice and other
pending matters walas to be heard first).
For Games Village (and other world class items) I have
been suggesting since 2003 a site either elsewhere in
NCR or, if it must be in Delhi, part of the Safdarjang
District Park. In my response to the public notice for
land use change near Akshardham, I had made only
process suggestions and declined hearing opportunity
in view of the question of my right to be heard being
sub-judice in my writ petition against metroPD (and
now also in the one against the Tehkhand project). But
I am glad for the invitation / opportunity to press
some of my suggestions in view of the Del Spl Act.
My response, btw:
Mr VM Bansal
Pr Commissioner cum Secretary
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110070
Sub: Public Notice dt 28 February 2006 for land use
change at Akshardham: Suggestions
Sir,
By the above, the Authority of the DDA has invited
objections / suggestions on a proposal for change of
land use of 16 Ha between Akshardham Temple and river
Yamuna from 'recreational' to 'residential' and
'commercial'. The proposal is for Commonwealth Games
Village, another key for 'unlocking' the riverbed and
is eminently objectionable. However, issuance of
Public Notice at this stage makes it impossible to
object in non-adversarial constructive manner and
without creating unseemly controversy at cost of DDA.
While you have freely and consistently rejected my
suggestions and offers of support, I remain bound by
my plannerly duties of care to continue to make them,
especially now that the mandate of the DDA is under
threat. I am enclosing a description of your proposal
as seen from the perspective of my pending matters,
notably my WP(C) 6500/2005 and my (unanswered)
requests for information, made under section 4(1)(d)
of RTI Act pursuant to Authority Meeting of
19.10.2005. This is hastily written and I am at your
disposal for any clarifications. With reference to it,
I make the following suggestions:
(a) In further processing of this Public Notice:
* Rajniwas staff (rather than DDA staff) be used since
the scheme originated in Rajniwas (not in DDA) and is
beyond the scope of DDA powers under s.11A
* Lt Governor personally chair the Board for Enquiry &
Hearing, in view also of pendency of compliance of
enquiry direction in judgment dt 16.9.2002 in
WP(C)4978/2002
* Steps be taken to strictly ensure that no
mis-information is propagated / unseemly controversy
abetted by discourse outside ambit of Public Notice
process
(b) The Board for Enquiry & Hearing thoroughly enquire
into my response / enclosed description (I decline
hearing opportunity in pendency of my WP(C) 6500/2005)
I also suggest that you do not ignore this response,
like you have all my previous Public Notice responses,
and that you peruse both the pending matters in
context of which it is made.
I specifically seek intimation of notification as soon
as issued along with full disclosure about the
consideration of my suggestions and enquiry by the
Board into my response.
Sd/-
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com