My writ petition amended to pray for quashing of three
notifications enabling metroPD was listed today (13
September).
After orders dated 28 February, 5 April and 5 July
DMRC and MoUD had filed counter-affidavits. In what
seems to be the oldest dilatory trick in the book, DDA
counsel gave us its counter-affidavit just before
lunch. Rather than wait till the end of the day for
the matter to reach and then be adjourned to give us
time to rejoin, all MIB made joint mention and got us
next date of hearing, 29 January.
We had filed Rejoinder to the DMRC counter-affidavit,
which mainly reiterated what DMRC had previously said
and did not reply to the fresh grounds and prayer, but
did mention it had paid penalty for block-1 of IT Park
having been constructed without permit. In our
Rejoinder we brought on record the penalty amount
(1.97 crores) and the facts of Block-2 also having
reached third floor without building permit and of the
public notice issued on 31 August and public-hearing
arranged on 4 September by Delhi Govt (which has not
replied) to process post-facto EIA clearance.
We had not filed Rejoinder to MOUD counter-affidavit
as it was mostly arguing about MOUD powers to change
anything in the plan even as the impugned
notifications were not issued under those powers but
under the powers vested in DDA. Since my prayer
apropos MOUD concerns its responsibilities under the
section that defines its control over DDA (not the
section that empowers it to make plan amendments) we
thought we should wait for the DDA counter-affidavit.
The counter-affidavit that DDA has filed today
provides, finally, the details of (non) consideration
of the objections received on the public notices. The
copies, however, are too dim and we have asked for
legible copies.
My first objection to this sort of metroPD was filed
in December 2002. I have in September 2006 information
of what they did with it. By the time Gopal has a
chance in January 2007 (if we are not adjourned again)
to present my objections to what they did with my
objections, the DD Act might have been repealed and/or
the PM might have intervened on other petitions etc.
On the bright side, the DMRC recreation-amusement
remains stayed. Gopal had also asked for a shorter
date with reference to our application for stay on the
IT Park construction, but Justice S.Ravindra Bhat does
have a very full board.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
notifications enabling metroPD was listed today (13
September).
After orders dated 28 February, 5 April and 5 July
DMRC and MoUD had filed counter-affidavits. In what
seems to be the oldest dilatory trick in the book, DDA
counsel gave us its counter-affidavit just before
lunch. Rather than wait till the end of the day for
the matter to reach and then be adjourned to give us
time to rejoin, all MIB made joint mention and got us
next date of hearing, 29 January.
We had filed Rejoinder to the DMRC counter-affidavit,
which mainly reiterated what DMRC had previously said
and did not reply to the fresh grounds and prayer, but
did mention it had paid penalty for block-1 of IT Park
having been constructed without permit. In our
Rejoinder we brought on record the penalty amount
(1.97 crores) and the facts of Block-2 also having
reached third floor without building permit and of the
public notice issued on 31 August and public-hearing
arranged on 4 September by Delhi Govt (which has not
replied) to process post-facto EIA clearance.
We had not filed Rejoinder to MOUD counter-affidavit
as it was mostly arguing about MOUD powers to change
anything in the plan even as the impugned
notifications were not issued under those powers but
under the powers vested in DDA. Since my prayer
apropos MOUD concerns its responsibilities under the
section that defines its control over DDA (not the
section that empowers it to make plan amendments) we
thought we should wait for the DDA counter-affidavit.
The counter-affidavit that DDA has filed today
provides, finally, the details of (non) consideration
of the objections received on the public notices. The
copies, however, are too dim and we have asked for
legible copies.
My first objection to this sort of metroPD was filed
in December 2002. I have in September 2006 information
of what they did with it. By the time Gopal has a
chance in January 2007 (if we are not adjourned again)
to present my objections to what they did with my
objections, the DD Act might have been repealed and/or
the PM might have intervened on other petitions etc.
On the bright side, the DMRC recreation-amusement
remains stayed. Gopal had also asked for a shorter
date with reference to our application for stay on the
IT Park construction, but Justice S.Ravindra Bhat does
have a very full board.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com