In the matter of my complaint to the Council of
Architecture about misuse of title of Architect for
Jamal Ansari in MOUD public notice about the Lal-Dora
Expert-Committee, I have received a letter from CoA
saying it has taken up the matter with MOUD.
:)
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Architecture about misuse of title of Architect for
Jamal Ansari in MOUD public notice about the Lal-Dora
Expert-Committee, I have received a letter from CoA
saying it has taken up the matter with MOUD.
:)
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com