10 questions about land "policy" initiatives for health and education facilities, notably the decision to accept Escorts' offer of 50 crores to "get rid of" lease conditions for free beds.

Sub: Health and education facilities – land policy initiatives

Dear Mr Baijal,

I have some questions arising from Independence Day Week reports about health and education “policy” that belies, besides NCMP promises already badly broken, what President and Prime Minister have said in their Independence Day addresses. Perhaps you would care to reply to some or all.

The Escorts’ offer (According to ToI reports of 20.08.04 the decision has been taken to accept Escorts’ offer of 51 crores to get rid of the condition for free beds).

  1. Why did Escorts not offer, instead of 51 crores, profits made by neglecting 25% responsibility in the past plus amount to be determined by the state for anticipatory fee for future violation? That would be a gesture more suited to healthcare facility of global repute in noble profession.
  2. Why did DDA / MoUD not consider levying the misuse penalty (10% of market value of property per day) reported in February 2004 as being under consideration for an amendment to the Act? That would be a more fitting response by the Indian nation to Escorts’ rare-temerity offer
  3. Why is the option not being exercised of offering, through global tender or something, Escorts for takeover by a management prepared to run it according to law? That would demonstrate that values of the Constitution of India and its planning and medical professions, besides statutory imperatives of Delhi Master Plan, are not open to mercenary offers.
  4. How are costs in terms of citizens’ health rights and undermining judicial processes in PIL in the Capital of the world’s largest democracy to be covered in perpetuity with a paltry 50 crores?

Land Policy for facilities (According to ToI report of 21.08.04 policy to auction school sites has been put up to LG and Delhi Government has sought a share of proceeds for its “development and welfare” activities – on grounds, it seems from the report, that it pays salary of Land Acquisition Collectors)

  1. Has similar prospective “policy” been put up for Hospitals and, in view of “policy” decision about Escorts’ offer, is mercenary retrospective “policy” also on the anvil for Schools? I ask in view of reports of review by LG, schools mulling court options, etc, apropos free seats.
  2. Has DD Act s.23 (requiring all proceeds from land and profits, etc, to be credited to DDA’s fund and applied to no purpose other than DMP) been amended / repealed? I ask in view of Delhi Govt claim, especially as its “development and welfare” often violates DMP.
  3. Has DD Act / DMP been amended / repealed since equitable facilities is its key purpose?

Facilities in Mehrauli-Mahipalpur / Vasant Kunj area

  1. Why was no action taken on letters of February 2002 about building illegalities and uncharitable behaviour in case of Charitable Trust, whose non-functional building on hospital site on Sahara Restaurant road is, as per HT report of 19.08.04, up for sale for 45 crores? I ask since you have been quoted in the Escorts matter on difficulties with monitoring, even as monitoring is mandatory, misuse complaints are ignored, a facility site was among cases exposed in DDA scam, public notice about adherence to conditions was issued by you last year, etc.
  2. Why has Delhi Government 40-crore hospital project in Vasant Kunj started in Green Belt despite being sub-judice in PIL (WP 8523/2003) and, in fact, covered by judgment of 16.09.02 in WP 4978/2002 that ordered inquiry into identically illegal Sultangarhi scheme? I ask because I have suggested before that the uncharitable Trust building on site meant for hospital be taken over for government hospital to deal with both cases of violations.
  3. What is the implication for facilities in Mehrauli-Mahipalpur / Vasant Kunj ridge area of the ongoing “policy” decisions to condone DMP and land policy violations on sites for facilities? I ask as violations in the area are sub-judice in WP 8523/2003 and WP 8954-59/2003 (schools), and also pending hearing by Parliamentary Standing Committee for Urban Development of views invited by notice of 22.06.03, inquiry as per High Court order of 16.09.02 (requested of LG and of you vide recent letters), appropriate action on four letters forwarded by President’s Secretariat to your office and one to Secretary MoHRD this year, hearing sought vide letter of 04.08.04 from Central Empowered Committee, etc, and also because authorities and schools have both ignored repeated requests for discussion about DMP solutions to problems that are driving alternatives.

Reiterating the suggestion at (9), I am enclosing1 letters of 2002 and text of report mentioned at (8).

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc: for information, offices referred above

+ NCMP subversion: Health and education facilities2

  • 1. "Uncharitable Hospital Trust" - Letter of February 24, 2002
    Letters of February 2002 following harassment of tea vendor by a charitable trust management owning a freshly constructed unutilized building on site meant for hospital in Vasant Kunj and news report of 19.08.04.


  • 2. NCMP subversion: Health and education facilities
    PIL-driven discourse about free beds and free seats has achieved in 2003-2004 what was unthinkable or at least unspeakable – managers of noble professions of healthcare and education ignobly violating the law of land have declared that they would rather be mercenary than noble and the state, having for long made clear that it could not care less, has stooped in the week after Independence Day to negotiating the fee for abrogating nobility, bargain price for selling the city’s health and education resources to those who have been violating health and education rights of citizens with impunity. Before pushing further its mercenary interpretations of facility and charity, untenable in law or sense, this historic discourse might want to consider how history will judge it.