[mpisgmedia] Lal-Dora Committee (response)

In continuation of
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg01223.shtml
after checking with my clients in Lal-Dora, I have
sent the following to Committee Convener MCD Chief
Planner:

(for those interested in responding to this public
notice, last date is 10 sep)


====
Shri VK Bugga, Chief Town Planner, MCD
Convener, Expert Committee on Lal Dora
Room No.401, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006

Sub: Expert Committee on Lal Dora / Public Notice
dated 28.08.06 (HT, p.12)

Sir,
By the above Public Notice, members of the public
'with particular reference to representative
bodies/interest groups/NGOs' are invited 'to share
their views on the issues contained in the Terms of
Reference' of 'Expert Committee on Lal Dora'
constituted by MOUD on 26.07.06 and to report within 3
months. The TOR are 'to examine the desirability
and/or feasibility of integration' of urban villages
into planned development and, 'if so, to recommend
broad principles and terms and conditions for
achieving the integration' and to suggest planning and
development control norms, modalities for implementing
Tejinder Khanna Committee recommendations, etc.

Kindly provide clarifications on the following points
and, in the meanwhile, take them on record as
objection to the committee. Needless to say, I do not
desire hearing on this communication. I do desire that
it be published in full along with any publication of
the report of this committee:

1. The Public Notice does not specify the provision
of law under which a Committee has been constituted
'to examine desirability and/or feasibility' of
planned integration of urban villages even as the same
is an imperative of mandatory Master Plan provisions
that can only be modified by due process under Delhi
Development Act. Kindly clarify - including by
disclosure in terms of section 4(1)(c) of Right to
Information Act, 2005 - relevant facts (especially
legality and propriety) of the decision, announced
with finality by this Public Notice, to constitute a
Committee with TOR in clear conflict with Delhi
Development Act.

2. The Public Notice does not mention Plan provisions
(ie mandatory entitlements and solutions) for
integration of urban villages, thereby implying that
appointed 'experts' can consider the issue ab-initio.
Then, instead of inviting public comment on 'expert'
consideration of the issue, it invites views of the
public for 'experts' to consider. The only other item
specified for 'expert' consideration is 'feasible
recommendations' of Tejinder Khanna Committee, even as
those 'expert' recommendations were also ostensibly
based on similarly invited views rather than mandatory
data as stipulated in Delhi Development Act and Master
Plan and required by professional planning principles
for cyclic process of survey-analyse-plan-monitor.
Kindly clarify - including by disclosure in terms of
s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act - how the TOR and modalities
announced add up to any 'expert' process.

3. The Public Notice describes Jamal Ansari as
Architect, which he is not. Misuse of title of
Architect in the Public Notice violates, and invites
penalties under, the Architects Act, 1972, and makes
the Public Notice one to invite public complicity in
disregarding professional law. It also casts
aspersions on the selection of 'experts'. Kindly
clarify - including by disclosure in terms of
s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act - the expertise that qualifies
each of the members of the 'expert committee' to
consider issues concerning integration of villages in
Delhi. Kindly also publish an explanation for misuse
of title of Architect for Jamal Ansari in the Public
Notice.

4. The Public Notice does not specify the provision of
law under which it invites views or the procedure by
which 'experts' will consider those views. It also
does not otherwise indicate the purpose for (or stage
at) which the 'experts' are soliciting views at end of
one-third of the committee's tenure - eg, views are
not invited by a questionnaire or checklist (ie, for
data collection) or on interim report (ie, to validate
preliminary output), but generally on general 'issues
contained in the Terms of Reference' (suited to peer
consultation rather than to public notice). Kindly
clarify - including by disclosure in terms of
s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act - the precise context of the
Public Notice in terms of the methodology being
followed by the 'expert' committee and progress made
so far.

5. Detailed objections/suggestions for implementation
of mandatory Plan provisions for integration of urban
villages have been filed in response to several Public
Notices issued under Delhi Development Act, including
ones for Sultangarhi project in J-Zone, DMRC IT Park
in O-Zone, and draft MPD-2021 (published in,
respectively, 2002, 2004 and 2005) for which you
participated in the Boards for Enquiry and Hearing
(despite Rules making you ineligible). 90-day Public
Notices have been published on 21.07.06 for draft ZDPs
for O-Zone and J-Zone and other rural area. Kindly
arrange for full disclosure in ambit of s.4(1)(c) and
s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act about consideration and disposal
of objections/suggestions concerning planned
integration of villages received in response to
statutory 30 or 90-days Public Notices for which you
sat on the Boards - before the present 'expert
committee' of which you are convener-member proceeds
with considering views informally shared pursuant to
this extra-statutory 2-weeks public notice in the
duration of statutory 90-day Public Notices for ZDPs
for rural area.

6. Issues concerning implementation of Plan provisions
for integration of villages are also pending in High
Court matters that I have advised as Planner. In two
such PIL pending since 2002 and 2003 MOUD has desired
not to reply. In two PIL of 2003, MCD has taken the
stand that it has no role in implementing planned
integration of villages. Kindly clarify to the
petitioners the change in stands marked by the present
Public Notice - including through affidavits and/or by
providing details in terms of section 4(1)(d) of RTI
Act - before proceeding with out-of-court
consultations to subvert the grounds of their pending
matters.

7. The emergent practice of expert-committees that
invite views-of-public to propose pre-ordained reforms
was pioneered in Delhi with the exercise that
culminated in the USAID-sponsored MCD Amendment Bill
that MCD had published in August 2005 to invite again
views-of-public. That exercise reportedly proceeded
from oral orders and 1 cr from USAID and was
ostensibly for participatory reforms to the building
byelaws (to which, and not to integration provisions,
Lal Dora definition is relevant). MCD had forwarded
its copy of my representation for dissolution of MCD
for this exercise to the USAID consultants for their
information and views. Since start of demolition and
sealing and launch of JNNURM at end of 2005 I have
repeatedly posited that the emergent situation is of
abuse of statutory powers and judicial process to
subvert sovereign law to make room for USAID-sponsored
law. Even if that were open to people in a democracy
to chose, the choice must necessarily be an informed
one. It seems high time for full disclosure also about
the USAID-sponsored MCD Amendment Bill, 2005.


Yours sincerely

Sd/-
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc: mpisg, az-plan




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

Folow-ups
  • Re: [mpisgmedia] Lal-Dora Committee (CoA response)
    • From: Gita Dewan Verma
  • Partial thread listing: