HC notice to Centre, others on PIL seeking DDA
dissolution
Press Trust of IndiaNew Delhi, May 26: THE Delhi High
Court on Friday issued notices to the Centre and
others on a PIL that sought dissolution of the Delhi
Development Authority (DDA). The petition said the
DDA?s continuance was unconstitutional. The PIL filed
by the Society for Safe Structures claimed that the
very existence of DDA has become infructuous in wake
of the 74th constitutional amendment, which empowered
panchayats and local municipalities to frame building
bylaws and development plans. A division bench
comprising acting Chief Justice Vijender Jain and
Justice S.N. Aggarwal asked the respondents to file
their replies and posted the matter to October 7 for
further hearing.
http://cities.expressindia.com/archivefullstory.php?newsid=184673&creation_date=2006-05-27
And:
Stage set for urban reforms in Delhi: Maken
http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/27/stories/2006052713130400.htm
(deja-vu)
Who or what is this Society for Safe Structures?
On Wed same bench told us it would keep its hands off
anything to do with the Del Spl Act as Supreme Court
had issued notice in the NGO-RWA PIL that assailed the
Bill. Seems to have changed its mind!
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
dissolution
Press Trust of IndiaNew Delhi, May 26: THE Delhi High
Court on Friday issued notices to the Centre and
others on a PIL that sought dissolution of the Delhi
Development Authority (DDA). The petition said the
DDA?s continuance was unconstitutional. The PIL filed
by the Society for Safe Structures claimed that the
very existence of DDA has become infructuous in wake
of the 74th constitutional amendment, which empowered
panchayats and local municipalities to frame building
bylaws and development plans. A division bench
comprising acting Chief Justice Vijender Jain and
Justice S.N. Aggarwal asked the respondents to file
their replies and posted the matter to October 7 for
further hearing.
http://cities.expressindia.com/archivefullstory.php?newsid=184673&creation_date=2006-05-27
And:
Stage set for urban reforms in Delhi: Maken
http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/27/stories/2006052713130400.htm
(deja-vu)
Who or what is this Society for Safe Structures?
On Wed same bench told us it would keep its hands off
anything to do with the Del Spl Act as Supreme Court
had issued notice in the NGO-RWA PIL that assailed the
Bill. Seems to have changed its mind!
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com