Now that GNCT interpretation of conformity with DMP2001 is to be applied to one Lakh industries, the matter of GNCT secretariat’s own conformity with DMP2001 (which does not indicate the site for government offices) must be settled first... the matter of its own projects challenged in wp 8523/2003 continuing despite involving violation of DMP2001 (green belt / ridge), cgwa notification and perhaps also amended EIA notification also needs to be settled ... we are failing to inform people’s representatives about the existence and adequacy of the statutory dmp2001 solution while they unnecessarily seek to “influence” in name of mere ideas for DMP2021 that are not only inferior but also unlikely to come through by due process of law.

Commissioner (Planning), DDA

Sub: Industries in Delhi – urgent request to draw attention to the statutory DMP2001 solution

Ref: My letter of 13.09.041

Dear Mr Jain,

At a discussion yesterday2 between SPA students who studied some industrial areas and representatives of industries and others supporting the statutory DMP2001 solution, it was mentioned that on 11.09.04 Chief Secretary GNCTD clarified to former PM Mr VP Singh over phone that areas other than industrial estates in Master Plan are non-conforming areas for purpose of closure. As planners, we are aware this definition is untenable in planning law. You would also be aware that in WP 6980/2002 and WP 8523/2003 (PIL with DDA and, in latter, also GNCT as respondents) High Court directed petitioners to file additional affidavits to detail out allegations of Master Plan violations at Zonal Plan / Layout Plan levels. Surely, the same is expected of authorities before action against so-called Plan violations.

You might also be aware that, following Indian Building Congress Award to Delhi Secretariat, etc, in June 2004 I wrote to object to honours for DMP violations. President’s Secretariat forwarded my communication for appropriate action to Secretary MoUD, to whom Mr Rebeiro, former Commissioner (Planning) whose firm’s project in Gujrat was also awarded, wrote at end of August to defend the Award without countering my contention that projects honoured in Delhi are illegal in terms of DMP2001. He posted a copy of his letter on the web-journal to which I post and I have posted on the same my reply3 to him. Neither he nor anyone else has countered my contention even now. Now that GNCT Chief Secretary’s interpretation of conformity with DMP2001 is to be applied to one lakh industries, the matter of GNCT Secretariat’s own conformity with DMP2001 (which does not indicate the site for government offices) must be settled first and I seek your view on this.

At yesterday’s meeting I saw a copy of GNCT release about cabinet decision of 11.09.04, last para of which conveys impression of conflict between industries and environment even as the order is for non-conforming (not “polluting”) units and the issue that of incompatibility, adequately addressed in DMP2001 (though not in GNCT ideas for DMP2021). Now that GNCT cabinet has invoked commitment to environment in the matter of industries to which it is irrelevant, the matter of its own projects challenged in WP 8523/2003 continuing despite involving violation of DMP2001 (Green Belt / Ridge), CGWA notification and perhaps also amended EIA notification also needs to be settled and I seek your view on this as well.

Lastly, a report in ET4 today suggests CM, UDM and LG are endeavoring to prevail upon PM to “influence” the court in matter of industries. As per a report in the Hindu yesterday, national Left leaders have also met PM. I find it sad that, as professional custodians of planning law, we are failing to inform people’s representatives about the existence and adequacy of the statutory DMP2001 solution while they unnecessarily seek to “influence” in name of mere ideas for DMP2021 that are not only inferior but also unlikely to come through by due process of law. I reiterate my request to you to defend the statutory solution for which we all have professional responsibility and you also the authority. I know I tend to write somewhat incomprehensibly and am enclosing a note that attempts to point out somewhat lucidly how DMP2021 ideas shortchange on DMP2001 entitlements, etc.

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, Planner


  • (for information), as in letter under reference
  • Former PM Mr VP Singh, for kind information wrt reference above
  • Secretary, MoEF, in continuation of request for clarification re EIA wrt WP 8523/2003


Approaching the Supreme Court in the matter of industries in Delhi

Delhi Government has decided to approach Supreme Court about industries in Delhi – a welcome initiative since the opportunity that the order of 07.05.04 provides for lawful solution has not been availed. However, the content of government’s proposal, identical to what it filed in IA 1206 of 10.12.99, is disappointing. The problem seems to be failure to appreciate the significance of the statutory DMP2001 solution that offers options far superior to DMP2021 ideas (on presumption of which becoming future law the court can, in any case, hardly rule) for each of the following:

  1. Industries in planned development where they are prohibited by DMP2001: DMP2001 prohibits industries in five Use Zones (recreational, transportation, utility, government, public/semi public) and permits them, with stipulations, in four (residential, commercial, manufacturing, agricultural). Where Use Zones have been duly earmarked, units in the former and units violating stipulations in the latter attract penal action. For these government is offering relocation in Bawana, etc (not in accordance with DMP2001 and tantamount to illegal option) whereas, except for F-category, prohibited in area of DMP2001 Land Use Plan (though subsequent modification allows it), DMP2001 allows options in planned space across the city. The judgment notes decision to promote industries in commercial space, but despite direction for incentives, this continues to be auctioned without incentives to industries. The judgment also refers to direction of October 2002 against commercial misuse in industrial estates, but this misuse continues and government also mooted in July a proposal to license commercial misuse in residential areas. Government’s proposal, limiting relocation to Bawana, etc, curtails DMP2001 options for relocation.
  2. Industries in unauthorized residential colonies developed in violation of DMP2001: Since the judgment is not for hazardous, noxious, etc, units, issue of incompatibility is to be assessed at local level. Units in unauthorized colonies arguably fall outside its purview, not being case of unauthorized use infringing rights of an authorized user. DMP2001 redevelopment provisions allow equal scope for residential or industrial areas to be incorporated on case-by-case basis into planning framework. Objections to regularizing in DMP2021 some areas on basis of a percentage are set out in MoUD affidavit, quoted at length in the judgment and certain to be reiterated in response to Public Notice. What DMP2001 permits / requires are studies of each such area to identify most effective options out of industrial relocation residential redevelopment / residential relocation industrial redevelopment / accommodating industrial use in commercial facilities in residential redevelopment / relocation of both / etc. Government’s simplistic idea for regularization amounts to abrogating planning responsibility, neither tenable in law nor good in governance. From point of view of industries, it curtails DMP2001 options in terms of (redevelopment) content and coverage – government’s “scientific survey” must cover all unauthorized colonies.
  3. Industries in privately developed industrial estates in areas where Zonal / sub-Zonal Plans have not been notified: DMP2001 stipulates 265 Ha for extensive and 1533 Ha for light industrial estates in outlying areas. This is the bulk of its provision for industries, to be earmarked in Zonal Plans, yet to be notified. Private industrial estates in such areas are in conformity with DMP2001, case of reality overtaking implementation. Not only can they not be considered “non-conforming” in absence of notified Zonal Plans, DD Act and DMP2001 call for, to extent possible, their redevelopment and incorporation in Zonal Plans. The idea of regularization in DMP2021, on the other hand, does not cover all these areas and in the areas that it does cover reduces right to benefit of planned development / redevelopment under existing law to favour of change in nomenclature in uncertain future law –uncalled for also because these areas arguably do not fall in the purview of the judgment since units in them do not infringe any rights of non-industrial users while contributing to city economy and employment as envisaged in DMP2001.
  4. Household industries / tiny units: DMP2001 acknowledges significance of tiny units. It permits them in residential premises to allow start-up with low capital investment and convenience of working from home. It also stipulates (for affordability) low-investment / rental options in form of flatted factories / sheds and (for convenience) options to locate in local shopping, etc, in residential areas. Restrictions on scale, power, etc, in residential premise, essential for limiting nuisance, also limit expansion options. Since restrictions are not monitored / enforced, a less conflict-prone option for such units may well be their promotion in commercial space in residential areas, also an imperative of land policy since commercial allocation was increased to accommodate industries, etc, and to not ensure their access to it amounts to illegal profiteering. The idea of expanding household industries in DMP2021 leaves the conflict between need for and nuisance on account of (unregulated) expansion unresolved.

The judgment permits two options – enforcement of statutory solution or closure of units; NCMP call for solutions, not postponement; DMP2001 must obviously form point of departure to avoid inertial repetition of mistakes that have marked the history of this matter.

Gita Dewan Verma | Planner | 15.09.04

Covering letter to PM

Dr Manmohan Singh, Hon’ble PM

Sub: Closure of industries in Delhi …

Ref: Copy of my letter of 13.09.045 to Commissioner (Planning), for information in continuation of letter of 09.09.04 (both enclosed for ready reference)

Respected Sir,

In continuation of my letters under reference I seek your indulgence to bring to your attention further concerns raised in the enclosed letter sent today to Commissioner (Planning) DDA with a note in an attempt to be somewhat lucid. I am rattled by a news report speaking of endeavours to persuade you to “influence” the court, not by apprehension of such possibility but by fact of such thought having, even inadvertently, been expressed in responsible media.

I again reiterate the contents of my letter to you and seek your intervention with urgency.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

  • 1. Delhi Government’s decision to seek review of order of 07.05.04 for industries – request for your view and prior disposal of my s.11A Public Notice response, etc.
    "Objection" on grounds of it being proven non-viable 5-year old idea rejected by the court and infringing DMP provisions and processes and any review petition proposal calling for wider political and professional discussion (in letter of 13.09.04 to DDA Commissioner (Planning) with copy to MoUD Secretary and also to Left Parties and PM)

  • 2. Discussion at SPA, 14.09.04
    Some industrial areas were part of recent School of Planning and Architecture (SPA) studio work, based on which some queries / suggestions had been earlier made to DDA / Delhi Government after the Supreme Court order of 07.05.04. On the evening of 14.09.04 students and a faculty member called a meeting to discuss Delhi Government’s decision of 11.09.04 to file a review petition.

  • 3. Reply to Prof Ribeiro's response
  • 4. Pollution: Dixit wants PM to fix it
    NEW DELHI: Polluting industries playing truant on two Supreme Court deadlines on shifting out of residential areas could get a final verdict on their fate tomorrow from Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh.

    According to sources, urban development minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Delhi chief minister, Sheila Dixit and Delhi LG, B L Joshi are set to meet Dr Singh to seek his intervention in the matter. (Retrieved 1st July, 2013)

  • 5. Delhi Government’s decision to seek review of order of 07.05.04 for industries – request for your view and prior disposal of my s.11A Public Notice response, etc., Op.cit.