Letter, Public Notice; Sub: 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)
Commissioner (Planning), DDA
Sub: 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
Dear Mr Jain,
Delhi Government has decided to approach Hon’ble Supreme Court for modification of the order of 07.05.04 with what appears to me, from news reports, to be a photo-copy of IA No.1206 that it filed on 10.12.99 for modification of order of 08.09.99 about which the Court has made its adverse view amply clear in the order of 07.05.04. It also appears to me that Delhi Government is seeking modification of an order based on Master Plan provisions and processes in a manner that infringes these, as follows:
Approaching the court with ideas for household industries infringes s.11A in view of pendency of Public Notice issued on 21.06.04 in compliance of direction #2. (In view of suggestion in my response thereto for placing responses in court, it might also amount to Art.14 infringement)
Approaching the court with ideas for “scientific survey” infringes s.7 and Plan review provisions. (Since authorities have demonstrated prolonged lapse in survey rigour, prior opportunity for scrutiny and comment on survey methodology by all interested qualified professionals might also be in order).
Approaching the court with ideas about relocation schemes might amount to attempt to secure judicial endorsement for illegalities by keeping facts unless questions raised about illegality of Bawana in terms of Plan violations are adequately answered first.
Approaching the court with ab-initio ideas for solutions without comparative appraisal vis-a-vis the Master Plan solution infringes statutory guarantees for implementation accountability. (Pending response to requests for the statutory solution to be placed in court, compliance through its enforcement and public debate on any alternative, it might also amount to deliberate circumvention of due process for Plan revision).
In any case, responsibility for Delhi Master Plan vests in central government. I do not think it is for Delhi Government (which has failed to resolve this matter since 1999, forgotten to represent itself on the authority of DDA for a year and repeatedly demonstrated its contempt of the Plan) to assume lien on this issue and wider political and professional discussion is certainly needed on content of its proposed review petition.
I request you, as colleague in a position of authority from where such plannerly concerns can be effectively raised, to please raise them. And I seek, before Delhi Government approaches the court, disposal by due process of my response to s.11A Public Notice and other representations about compliance of the order through enforcement of the statutory solution provided by Delhi Master Plan on which the order is based.
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
- Dr Manmohan Singh, Hon. Prime Minister (in continuation of letter of 09.09.04, encl)
- Left parties on UPA-Left coordination committee
- Secretary, MoUD