RTI Matter, Letter, RTI matter; Transfer of RTI request under s.4(1)(d) from LG Sectt to DDA VC

Test case for preliminary hypothesis about implications of structural weaknesses in Right to Information Act, 2005, for structural weaknesses in organisations and consequent issues of accountability and information politics

Dear Sirs,

I seek information about status of compliance of  directions for theLieutenant Governor in three judgments of Delhi High Court.

I urge you to consider publishing this information under s.4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as relevant facts related to important and  well-publiciseddecisions for compliance of other  orders of Delhi High Court.   And I request you to kindly provide (or refuse to provide) to me, at the earliest, this information  under s.4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

I am affected person since DDA Secretary has stated  before Central Information Commission on 23.12.05 (in  hearing of a complaint aboutMPD-2021 Public Notice in  which Iam not impleaded) that I should file a  petition. This was whileobjecting to my making a  submission, which I wished to make incontext of my  representation of 25/26.10.05 to LG /DDAChairman and  DDA PIOs/AAs regarding RTI Act and MPD-2021 and subsequent requests to DDA and representation of  20.12.05 to LG. (The latter I had also made to CIC and  wasattending the hearing in that context). I construe  thestatement of DDA Secretary as DDA decision to  reject myRTIrequests / suggestions and invite a  petition. I am obviouslyaffected and since DDA  Secretary also stated before CIC thatreasons for  decisions need not be disclosed, I am constrainedto  request instead under s.4(1)(d) an array of facts on which the said reasons might reasonably reckoned to  havebeen based. The three court judgments, and how  they relate tothe petition that I have to file, are  as follows:

  1. Judgment dated 25.11.2005 in WP(C)8237-56/2005  (Bhumiheen Camp& Ors v/s DDA & Ors)directing, inter alia, that “the site where the residentsof Bhumiheen Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhiwould  be relocated, will be decided by the L-G”.
    (My objections/suggestions are pending disposal by  Boards for Public Notices of 08.04.05 for MPD-2021  thatproposes flatted slum re-housing options and of  31.08.05 forland use change of Tughlakabad District  Park to residential forthe pilot-project for slum  flats for which this petition wasfielded. The  pilot-project was already undertaken in affidavit filed by Secretary MoUD in Supreme Court in the Yamuna  matter in September and the policy-option reportedly came up on Agenda of Authority meeting on 19.10.05. I apprehendthat recent press statements by Chief  Minister Ms SheilaDikshit, Delhi Urban Development  Minister Mr AK Walia and NewDelhi MP Mr Ajay Maken  are further pre-empting impartialdisposal of Public  Notice objections/suggestions. Withreference to news reports of the judgment I has sought a-prioridisposal  of these in representation dated 03.12.05 to LG, cited in my representation dated 20.12.05 about RTI).
  2. Judgment dated 17.12.2004 in WP(C) 19808/2004  (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v/s DDA & Ors)  directing that the petition (for directions to  authorities forencroachment removal around DMRC  constructions at Shastri Parkon Yamuna riverbed) “be treated as a representation to theLt.Governor of  Delhi… Lt.Governor of Delhi is directed totake a  decision within 2 weeks from today. Lt.Governor of  Delhi would also ensure that his order is complied  with”.
    (I was party to joint representationdated 26.12.04  for simultaneous consideration by LG against the unauthorised DMRC constructions at Shastri Park in  defiance of court order of 03.03.03 against all  unauthorisedstructures on the riverbed by which a  portion of Pushta wassimultaneously being cleared.  Counter-affidavits in a writpetition I filed in April  2005 have revealed that the DMRCconstruction at  Shastri Park was informally”sanctioned” at a meeting in Rajniwas in 2003 anddoes not have even building  permit. I apprehend the affidavitof Secretary MoUD,  who is also DMRC Chairman, subsequentpresentation by East Delhi MP Mr Sandeep Dikshit of ariverfront  scheme to Delhi cabinet and recent remarks of New Delhi MP have emboldened DMRC to expand, with no  reference to my pending writ petition, the description  of itsunauthorised Shastri Park project on it website  and that it maywell be pursuing further phases of the  same, in defiance now ofcourt orders for demolition  of all unauthorised constructionsin Delhi. My writ  petition is in the matter of violations ofPublic  Notice process and frequently cited in my RTI  representations)
  3. 3. Judgment dated16.09.2002 in WP 4978/2002 (Delhi  Science Forum v/s DDA &Ar) stopping construction of  mega-housing in Sultangarhi ridgeperiphery while  observing “it is a fit case where theChairman of the first respondent should see to it that howauthorities  of the first respondent herein were allowed to take such decisions which admittedly are wholly illegal and  without jurisdiction. …once such illegalities are  permitted the same in our opinion would give further  incentiveto a statutory authority like the first  respondent herein toperpetuate the same and to  indulge in other illegalities”.   (This PIL arose from my communications since 2000and the s.11A Public Notice precipitated by it was the  first in many years and the last before the one for  MPD-2021 for which a Board of Enquiry & Hearing heard responses. The judgement and Public Notice are the  basis of mysubsequent Public notice and court matters  and representations,including application of 01.10.05  under s.41(3) of DD Act to LGabout the composition  and functioning of the Board forMPD-2021, from which arose my request of 15.12.05 unders.4(1)(d) of RTI  Act, 2005, about reconstitution of the same.This was also the subject of the Complaint that CIC was hearing on 23.12.05).

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,  Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc az plan

piolg.delhi@xxxxxx wrote:

Please find enclosed anapplication received through E-Mail of Ms. Geeta Diwan Verma seekingcertain information under Right to Information Act, 2005.

It is requested that anappropriate action as per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 inthe matter be taken under intimation to this Secretariat within astipulated time frame.

(V.P. RAO)
Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor

Encl: As above.

VC, DDA

U.O. No. RTI/05/RN/                                

Dated:

Copy to: Ms. Gita Diwan Verma.

(V.P. RAO)

Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor

From: Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:42:08 -0800 (PST)

Addl Secy & PS to LG 
PIO, LG Sectt, Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054 Dear Sir,

Thank you for e-mail of 13.01.2006 about forwarding mine of 28.12.2005 to DDA VC for appropriate action within stipulated time-frame. I am unaware of time-frame stipulation for s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005, and request you to kindly let me know the same.

Yours sincerely, Gita Dewan Verma, Planner