Response to Public Notice
Objection (on grounds of the proposed DMP modification obfuscating DMP provisions in pursuit contrary to their purpose, violating due process for DMP modification and impeding imperatives of Supreme Court order of 07.05.2004) and Suggestion (for DMP solution, public debae on any alternative plan for compliance and including responses in progress report of 31.08.04), filed on 10.07.2004
Delhi Division, Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011
Sub: Public Notice No.K-13011/6/2004-DDIB dated 21.06.04 published in Hindustan Times dated 02.07.04 (p.16) – OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The Public Notice under reference is for Delhi Master Plan (DMP) modification to add twenty three entries (numbered (i) to (xxiii)) to the sixty seven (numbered 1 to 67) in DMP Annexure III (Classification of Industries) Group-A, along with text about prohibitions (for all) in terms of six (pollution / hazard risk) processes and of storage limits for hazardous chemicals.
I object to the proposal on grounds of it obfuscating DMP provisions in pursuit contrary to their purpose, violating due process for DMP modification and impeding imperatives of Supreme Court order of 07.05.2004. And I reiterate my suggestion, made since 2002, for DMP solution.
1. Objection to obfuscation of DMP provisions
(i) The Public Notice refers to Annexure-IIIA (Group-A industries) as ‘list of Household Industries’. This is inaccurate. As amply evident from explicitly stated premises of DMP provisions for industries, distinction between existing and future units in DMP provisions for Household Industries and in table showing permissibility of Group-A industries also in industrial and commercial use zones / use premises, including local shopping in residential area, ie, in housing-based rather than home-based situations, Group-A is a list NOT of industries to somehow be accommodated by homes, but of industries that could be allowed in homes if already existing as such in 1990 and, thereafter, accommodated in, besides planned industrial space, planned commercial and mixed use pockets and also permitted in homes subject to differential restrictions. The proposed modification obfuscates Group-A and Household Industries in a manner that, in absence of any positive steps to implement DMP provisions for Group-A, is contrary to DMP’s maximum flexibility purpose of their classification as such.
(ii) Of 23 additional entries proposed, only 2 are unambiguous additions – no.(i) Aluminium hanger (excluding wire drawing and anodizing) and no.(ii) Ayurvedic / homoeopathic medicines. 14 obfuscate Group-A list with duplicate / overlapping entries and non-industry trades and 7 obfuscate Annexure-III by not making corresponding deletions in other groups from which they have been shifted to Group-A (Please see entry-wise detail in Annex-1, 1p). Thus, the proposed modification, to extent of 21 out of 23, obfuscates Annexure-III Classification of Industries incorporated for controlled flexibility in 1990 and expected to be refined in light of experience in the ongoing DMP revision rather than be obfuscated through pre-emptive DMP modification.
(iii) The proposed prohibitions are misplaced in Annexure III (only a list) as restrictions for industries are set out elsewhere in DMP. Since DMP restrictions for Household Industry already exclude polluting/hazard risk uses and – in housing-amenity-centred perspective rather than the industry-centred one that guides planning for industrial areas – are aimed at mitigating nuisance by limiting scale (employment, space, power load, etc), the proposed modification, in effect, introduces perfunctory misplaced prohibitions to obfuscate existing restrictions on Household Industries that DMP stipulates for purpose of expanding permissibility within boundaries of compatibility.
2.Objection to violation of due process for DMP modification
The Notice violates s.11A(3) that requires it to be issued in Form B under signature of DDA Secretary and truncates opportunity for holistic scrutiny that DMP 2021 Notice would allow for 90 days, further truncating with 10-day publication delay even the 30-day scrutiny period for piecemeal modification. In view of obfuscation and because of no reference to DMP 2021 studies, the proposed modification seems unrelated to due process for DMP revision requiring mandatory monitoring / planning data and expected to refine Annexure-III and possibly also to dispense with Household Industry in favour of other options for Group-A in view of misuse of provisions for it, including through this Notice.
3.Objection to impeding imperatives of Supreme Court judgment of 07.05.2004
Supreme Court judgment of 07.05.2004 directs closure of impermissible Household Industries in six months, while allowing finalization of list of permissible industries in three months. It is amply clear from the judgment that these directions arise out of DMP entitlements to residential amenity that uncontrolled industrial use in housing areas infringes. The Court has given government leave to make considered additions to the type of industries included in Group-A and, thereby, permissible in homes subject to DMP restrictions. The Court has not given government leave to relax nuisance-based DMP restrictions on permissibility of Group-A industries as Household Industries. Indeed, the judgment comprehensively rejects all prior attempts in this dubious pursuit of unrestricted ‘regularization’ of industries in homes. The proposed modification, with illusory additions to Group-A industries and obvious obfuscation of restrictions for their operation as Household Industries is contrary to Supreme Court directions and, in view of them being time-bound, tantamount to diversionary impediment to imperatives for compliance in widest public interest.
The suggestion, made repeatedly since 2002, for enforcement of statutory DMP solution for the ‘problem’ of industries is reiterated. This was detailed in note of 06.06.04 on ‘National Common Minimum Programme Opportunities and Imperatives: Supreme Court Judgment of 07.05.2004 for Industries in Delhi’, including summary of previous requests, ‘replies’, etc, (Annex-2, 6p), sent to members of Monitoring Committee, offices of GNCT Ministers for Industries and Urban Development, Secretary MoUD and DDA Commissioner (Planning). The last, with reference to request of 26.04.03 to place in Court DMP permissibility of industries in planned commercial areas, etc, sought addition of the note to prior response to s.11A Public Notice for DMP modification to allow ‘metro-property development’ on space with competing claims for DMP solutions for industries, informal sector, etc (Annex-3, 1p). As 6-week period for announcing incentives elapsed without incentives being announced, even as inertial initiatives continued, request for urgent consideration of note of 06.06.04 in view also of possible need for special budget was made on 24.06.04 (Annex-4, 1p). Thereafter government’s proposal ‘to permit 23 more industries to operate in residential areas’ was reported (Pioneer, 27.06.04) without reference to and before publication of the instant Public Notice. Also reported were proposals for ‘regularisation’ of shops in homes (while objections on related Public Notice of 15.12.02 have yet to be disposed off), DSIDC bhagidari-maintenance investments in industrial estates (like DDA’s 30 crores in markets, without regard to misuse of space usable for shifting units) and MCD action against automobile service units without regard to DMP option of accommodating such non-conforming industry in service commercial centres.
Amidst moves to ‘spare’ planned commercial space where industries are permissible and to condone commercial misuse of planned industrial space, Public Notice for DMP modification to expand permissibility of industries in homes calls, in evidence of bonafide, for transparency about government’s ‘plans’ in disregard of DMP solutions for industries. Especially since DMP solutions apply most of all to Group-A industries, permissible in all industrial options available in DMP, I suggest that, before ‘processing’ this Public Notice, MoUD defend in a public debate government’s ‘alternative plans’ for industries against statutory DMP solutions. I am, and I am sure others would be, prepared to defend DMP. You are requested to respond to this suggestion either with grounds for its rejection or with your suggestions for modalities for fair debate. I posit that such response is an imperative, at the least, of s.11A in view of defects in this Public Notice and I hope it will be forthcoming with promptitude. In any case, I specifically request / suggest inclusion of responses to this Public Notice in the progress report to be filed in Supreme Court by 31.08.04.
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner
Monitoring Committee members | Secretary MoUD | DDA Commissioner (Planning) (for information, especially apropos suggestions, in continuation of note of 06.06.04, etc)