Mr S.MUKHERJEE,
Under Secy, MoUD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011

Sub: Public Notice No. K-13011/5/2000-DIB dated 04/11/04, published on 19/11/04

Dear Mr Mukherjee,

As per news reports, the proposal put to above 30-days Public Notice, also reproduced in draft DMP2021 out on 90-day Public Notice of 08/04/05, has been notified on 31/05/05. I am writing to request the following:

1. Reflection on legality and propriety of notification in the duration of DMP2021 Public Notice since it, in effect, notifies part of draft DMP2021 (or even modified draft DMP2021 – which could be problematic, as draft DMP2021 does not mention the industries Public Notice. Since that Public Notice arose out of political consensus and was welcomed by industries (most unfairly treated throughout this matter, including by the instant offer that, at least, was made by due process), those like myself would not challenge the notification of 31/05/05, but it is fraught with infirmities and wide open to challenge and on 31/11/04 the Hon’ble Court had also desired to test for conformity with law. Please permit me to suggest that GoI reply to those whose objections / suggestions have been rejected, preferably in context of the full range of responses received.
2. For proof / type of consideration of my response by way of detailed suggestion to rectify techno-legal infirmities in GoI proposal, the following (which I seek out of academic interest in the industries issue that I have been chronicling for years, in view of process issues apropos Public Notice for IT Park on riverbed (also mentioned in my response – p.1, para-4 p.2, encl.1 & 2) being in High Court in WP 6500/2005 in which I am petitioner, and with urgency since I was about to start on similar suggestions in response to Public Notice to rectify infirmities in some other parts of draft DMP2021 and you would appreciate assurance of adequate consideration is not too much to ask before investing time and expertise in that sort of thing):
   • (a) Comparative appraisal of my suggestion and GoI proposal (“for conformity with law and constitutional framework, consistency with goals/framework/structure of the Master Plan and efficacy vis-à-vis so-called “populist” objectives which are, in fact, intuitively just and demand techno-legal articulation”, para-1, p.1)
   • (b) Details of industrial clusters, mapped on DMP-2001 land use plan (essential for meaningful consideration of any proposal pertaining to non-conformity, para-2, p.2, also addition of 09/12/04 and request of 17/12/04). (c) Details of GNCTD industrial development and closure, mapped on DMP-2001 land use plan (to verify their DMP conformity, para-4, p.2, request of 17/12/04).
   • (d) Estimate of amount of space transferred out of MPD-2001 allocation for industrial use by proposal for ‘redevelopment’ in lieu of development and status, if known, of GNCTD scientific-surveys and MCD local-area-plans (encl.3, etc).
   • (e) Reasons for not being given hearing, etc (para-5, p.2; also request of 17/12/04)

If I do not hear from you shortly I will assume GoI is not open to suggestions from planners like myself and will respond to DMP2021 Public Notice accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc:

with requests as above and also request for comments / reasons for rejection of suggestion of 15/11/03 (enclosed / at <link to web-post of 25/12/03>1), made in ambit of s.11A, for Safdarjang area (for which draft DMP2021 land use plan does show additional, perhaps socio-cultural, use but the text does not clarify which of the proposals mooted in 2003-04 this represents)

• Jt Secy MoUD (Delhi Division)
• Commissioner (Planning) DDA

---

| Response2, 02/12/04 | Addition3, 09/12/04 | Request4, 17/12/04 |