take the liberally-most one (it is obsolete now, somebody somewhere must
have read the indian constitution and amended between 28/3 and 23/7),
and i am taking this because by even the most generous stretch of
imagination, the NGO does not qualify for the pleasures she is demanding.
No NGO permitted by the above line only.
based on professional
which means, the first obvious distinction:
the professional (substantially better clarified since) lives on the
premises, and uses a part of the premises for professional work. which
does not mean, the NGO rents a whole house, has hundreds of visitors,
employees, and meetings involving other NGOs creating, for example,
nuisance in having people waiting outside the offices, parking problems
in the neighborhood and so on. so the professionals exemption is the same as a SoHo segment thing not to be confused with mixed land use.
a professional is usually a single person, or a group of persons. an NGO
is a Section 25 company, and therefore a corporate organization. there
is a categorical distinction here, over and beyond the issues mentioned
in my last mail. for example, nothing will stop the indian railways
operating from rented flats if NGOs are permitted the same.
photographic evidence should be collected immediately from the named
NGOs and print publication houses named in the petition showing the
analogy they are trying to draw is not apt.
this ought not be seen in some narrow planning framework sense. it is a, the clever, devious, willful attempt obfuscation of the law and the normative categories at large. the malicious intentions behind this move must clarified to the institutions, councils, and ministries immediately given most of them are loath of the NGO. also, lawyers check, does this type of a petition (given this type of an intent) qualify the signatory NGOs for blacklisting per World Bank, United Nations and GoI guidelines?
photographic evidence can be provided about the named NGOs and publishers named in the petition.
--------
we have technology in the making, but cannot capture off world information reliably, so could somebody put more data of this type on the server somewhere? the petition makes claims about NGO whereas
we have been hearing about stuff such as a DU survey, "who does the citizen go to in time of distress about urban issues?", apparently, more than half go to the government and professionals, and NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THEIR VERY LARGE NATIONWIDE SAMPLE went to an NGO.
have read the indian constitution and amended between 28/3 and 23/7),
and i am taking this because by even the most generous stretch of
imagination, the NGO does not qualify for the pleasures she is demanding.
MLU NOTIFICATION DATED 28/03/2006 ...
10.5 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY
Professional activity includes non-hazardous and
non-nuisance kind of activity
No NGO permitted by the above line only.
based on professional
skills where the professional like a Doctor, Lawyer,
Architect, Engineers, Chartered Accountant, Designer,
etc. may render such services from their residential
premise. Professional activity shall be permissible on
any floor subject to a maximum of 25% of the floor
area of the dwelling unit or not exceeding one floor
in case of plotted development.
which means, the first obvious distinction:
the professional (substantially better clarified since) lives on the
premises, and uses a part of the premises for professional work. which
does not mean, the NGO rents a whole house, has hundreds of visitors,
employees, and meetings involving other NGOs creating, for example,
nuisance in having people waiting outside the offices, parking problems
in the neighborhood and so on. so the professionals exemption is the same as a SoHo segment thing not to be confused with mixed land use.
a professional is usually a single person, or a group of persons. an NGO
is a Section 25 company, and therefore a corporate organization. there
is a categorical distinction here, over and beyond the issues mentioned
in my last mail. for example, nothing will stop the indian railways
operating from rented flats if NGOs are permitted the same.
photographic evidence should be collected immediately from the named
NGOs and print publication houses named in the petition showing the
analogy they are trying to draw is not apt.
this ought not be seen in some narrow planning framework sense. it is a, the clever, devious, willful attempt obfuscation of the law and the normative categories at large. the malicious intentions behind this move must clarified to the institutions, councils, and ministries immediately given most of them are loath of the NGO. also, lawyers check, does this type of a petition (given this type of an intent) qualify the signatory NGOs for blacklisting per World Bank, United Nations and GoI guidelines?
photographic evidence can be provided about the named NGOs and publishers named in the petition.
--------
we have technology in the making, but cannot capture off world information reliably, so could somebody put more data of this type on the server somewhere? the petition makes claims about NGO whereas
we have been hearing about stuff such as a DU survey, "who does the citizen go to in time of distress about urban issues?", apparently, more than half go to the government and professionals, and NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THEIR VERY LARGE NATIONWIDE SAMPLE went to an NGO.