The schools matter (by Social Jurist for further
directions for compliance of order of 20/01/04 in its
free seats PIL) was listed today before the division
bench of Acting Chief Justice BA Khan and Justice
Madan Lokur in court 1 at items 20 to 40.

The schools that challenged in 2004-2005 the GNCTD 20%
BPL quota directive (in purported compliance of DB
order of 20/01/04 that directed GNCTD to frame rules
and bring to attention of DDA violations of
conditions) would have been heard yesterday by Justice
Vikramjit Sen by order of 18/08/05. But on 18/08/05
was also passed DB order in the SJ matter directing
personal appearance of officials on 23/08/05, when
lists of violating schools were ordered, etc, and on
13/09/05 were ordered court notices via newspapers to
schools (as desired by Ashok Agarwal of SJ and GNCTD
and DDA counsel), meeting within 10 days with CM
(desired by Salman Khursheed of Action Committee /
DPS) and transfer of the school cases from the single
bench to DB.

The matters did not reach today and were mentioned at
the close of the day. All MIB start talking together
at mention-time and what I gathered in the bedlam is:

(1) The list of schools on notice has not been
published as per order of 13/09/05 (SJ Ashok Agarwal
began the mentioning with that and DDA counsel Mr
Sabharwal loudly submitted that the Registry had to
publish and GNCTD had to pay and a lady lawyer from
those that represent GNCTD, suggested the Registry be
directed again).

(2) Meeting with CM happened and CM has asked those
who attended to make representations to her about
their ideas / schemes (This was submitted by a lawyers
for schools, not Salmaan Khursheed who was not there.

From GNCTD officer who attends these hearings I

learned that the meeting occurred on evening of
Saturday 24/09/05 and was attended by Ashok Agarwal
and Action Committee / DPS lawyers and MCD
Commissioner was not present and she was not sure if
DDA VC was).

(3) The matter was adjourned to 09/11/05 (several
lawyers said so afterwards and all looked rather
pleased about that).

In 2002-03 bhagidaari negotiations for commitment
honouring were going on between Ms Dikshit and Action
Committee / DPS on stage set by Social Jurist. The
order in SJ PIL itself puts the onus of rule (and
pre-required scheme) making on GNCTD with DDA (and
MPISG PIL and schools matters that were making
progress make that point). In just over a month since
18/08/05 we are back to chit chat among Ms Dikshit and
Action Committee and SJ (same day as Sahmat
convention, about which Hindu reported what Yechury
said and SJ circulated its paper) and a 6-week
adjournment.

---

btw, there was a matter about distance learning marked
by same pattern of all-round atrophy that might be of
interest also to WTO watchers with higher education on
the revised offer for GATS. it seems that in the
enthusiasm about distance learning a few years ago
universities were encouraged to start courses without
approvals. UGC and distance learning council / IGNOU
seem to have unclear / mixed-up regulatory roles. this
year universities were asked to apply for approvals
and several applications were rejected. MIB took over
and now UGC has recommended withdrawal of deemed
university status for non-compliance-of-guidelines or
some such bad-behaviour. 95 yr old Allahabad
university is among those affected.
(the case was the one that went on and caused the
schools matter to not reach. it was so well argued by
all the MIB that I was glad the irritating schools
court-craft did not reach. I also found it apposite
that their mentioning was out-shouted by MIB wanting
early date because his matter was about Ramlila and he
got Monday 3 Oct).

               
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com