Letter, Public Notice; GNCTD publication of s.11A Public Notices

Under Secretary, Delhi Division

MoUD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: GNCTD Public Notices about industries in Hindustan Times, 12.11.04, pp. 17 & 21


  1. The above notices reproduce MoUD Public Notices for modification of DMP provisions for industries. This is not the publishing procedure u/s.11A and leaves your Public Notices open to challenge in courts. I seek immediate re-publishing as per rules in view of:

    (a) Decision for Public Notices having been taken, reportedly, at highest levels in GoI.

    (b) Reportedly different GNCTD stance (in court and by continuing closures)

    (c) Different “civil-society” stance (anti-industry media, rumor of IA to challenge notices).

  2. About modification of DMP provisions for industrial redevelopment I will be filing detailed suggestions after Public Notice is published as per rules u/s.11A(3). Meanwhile, I wish to:

    (a) place on record appreciation for MoUD’s lawful choices in preferring redevelopment to “regularization”, the term non-conforming-clusters to “non-conforming-areas”, etc

    (b) make pre-publication suggestions – the text could be split into three (policy level addition to main text, conditions to Development Code, and time frame to monitoring framework), process options (redevelopment by societies, etc) could be re-worded as suggestion rather than stipulation; use-zone exceptions / H-category (noxious / hazardous) prohibitions can be dropped, being already more explicit in DMP.

  3. With reference to GNCTD notice mentioning notification of 17.08.04 adding 28 items to Category-A (pursuant to s.11A Public Notice of 21.06.04 for 23), contents of Public Notice of 04.11.04 for 18 more and “revised nomenclature” for 3 notified additions, I seek:

    (a) Details of disposal of Public Notice of 21.06.04 be made public (and placed in court, as suggested in my response) – since notification of 28 after Notice for 23, followed by Notice for 18 more and “revised nomenclature” for 3 notified, etc, smacks of arbitrariness whereas circumstances (besides NCMP) warrant proof of seriousness about s.11A (the only legal and equal process for public participation in DMP).

    (b) Details of disposal of my response to Notice of 21.06.04 (in time for me to respond to Notice of 04.11.04) – since “revised nomenclature” from “repair” (commercial) to “assembly and repair” (manufacturing) is actually rectification of an error in Notice of 21.06.04 that I pointed out while also mentioning that several items to be added were already in Annex-IIIA (eg, after “revised nomenclature”, item 18 (new) / 2 (original) and item 20 (new) / 4 (original) are duplicates) and since the 18 additions proposed in Notice of 04.11.04 also include commercial / duplicate entries, etc, and other objections / suggestions in my response also largely apply.

  4. Legality/propriety of these GNCTD notices (that do not clarify the implications of MoUD notices for industries facing closure) seem as questionable as legality/propriety of GNCTD action against industries (since powers to penalize DMP violations vest in DDA). GNCTD did not, for instance, publicize MoUD Notice of 18.09.04 for DMP modification to “regularize” the illegal IT Park that it has been promoting rather than penalising. Its demand that responses to MoUD Notices be sent under intimation to it is exceptionable. Not only am I not copying this letter to GNCTD I seek u/s.41(3) examination of legality and propriety of this “process” for handling s.11A Public Notices.

I hope you appreciate that the issues I am raising here are not just about industries and s.11A but about anomie. I do hope MoUD will respond to this letter. Thanking you,

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, Planner