According to a ToI report: DDA plans demolition action
on Monday against 40 classrooms that Goenka School has
built on its playfield in violation of Master Plan.
The violation was noticed by DDA field staff, the
school moved the court, the court ruled in favour of
demolition, DDA fixed September 30 as date for action,
postponed after LG intervention. The School has said:
"We have constructed only 20 rooms and these are only
temporary structures. We will ourselves remove them in
phases. We have filed a petition in the court which is
coming up for hearing on Friday. In any case, we had
constructed these classrooms with the knowledge of
The facts are different, as follows:
On 10 September 2003 (not 2004) Delhi High Court
disposed off the Goenka petition (CW 2638/2003) with
an order (available on the web) that said: "The
petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of the order dated 29.1.2003 and letter dated
20.3.2003. At the stage of issuance of the show cause
notice, learned counsel has stated that the structure
in question was originally a temporary structure which
had to be removed on completion of building but some
time may be granted for removal of the structure since
the same is being utilized by schools. It was on that
account that the notice to show cause had been issued.
Sufficient time has elapsed since the said date of
show cause notice. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner states that at least time may be granted
till the end of the academic session. In view thereof,
it is directed that the petitioner shall remove the
structure on or before 15.5.2004 and an undertaking
shall be filed to this effect by the authorized
representative of the petitioner within a period of
two weeks from today. It is made clear that on the
failure of the petitioner to file necessary
undertaking with advance copy to learned counsel for
the respondent, it will be open to respondent to
forthwith proceed in terms of the impugned order".
So what did which LG intervened to postpone when?
* Was it 30 September 2003 that DDA had fixed for
demolition, after failure of Goenka to file an
undertaking in 2 weeks from 10 September 2003?
* In that case, did (former) LG intervene despite the
High Court order?
* Or was 30 September 2004 the date fixed by DDA?
* In that case, what took it so long after failure of
Goenka to act by 15 May 2004, despite its undertaking?
* And why has (present) LG intervened?
* Does the fresh petition use stale plea for relief
till May 2005 or raise some fresh issue?
* And will DDA obfuscate facts about orders in court,
like in media?
There are more facts and questions arising from them:
Extra construction is a building level violation, the
smallest of Master Plan violations, and may well be,
or be shown to be, compoundable. (DDA is already
talking in the report of sports facilities being
allowed on playground and Goenka may well relocate to
this block from main building its a/c gym, etc, and
say ho-gaya). There are other violations, not
The 20 or 40 temporary-rooms are duly pucca-fied and
pretty-fied, making two-on-one-school, sub-standard on
the site, with parking mayhem outside. Playground is
no problem for the school because it has, besides a/c
gym wagera, access to adjoining park for which it
built boundary wall in corporate bhagidari. Park
misuse as well as pollution-norms-violating gen-sets
are source of frequent representations by area
residents (Masudpur villagers, not Vasant Kunj RWAs /
NGOs), whose latest gripe is about Goenka buying from
some trust (builder?) fancy big building on primary
school site across the road. Layout Plan violations
include, besides misuse of adjoining park and
two-on-one-school, occupation of sites earmarked for
school for the handicapped and site for class VI-XII,
ie secondary, school (those for universalising
education for the disabled and, since this week, at
secondary school level, please note). Amalgamation is
not permitted and even if it were, would not add up to
stipulated size for Nursery-XII school, besides which
the location is not designed to handle, without
nuisance to residents, the traffic requirement of such
school. The Zonal / Master Plan violation is
non-conformity with DMP equal access neighbourhood
school system (which does exist as law, despite
contrary suggestion by PIL seeking its invention in
court out of suggestions invited on affidavit).
Besides being on the wrong site, Goenka is flouting
both the other conditions for this – local enrolment
to not be refused and 25% free seats to be ensured.
(Incidentally, I had approached all well-appointed
schools in the area in 2000-2001 with ideas for
sharing facilities with children out of school or in
less-equipped schools and in 2004 for discussion of
ideas for progressive implementation of DMP system on
the peg of free seats order. While nearly none
responded, Goenka was the one that had said, in our
first meeting, that it does not 'indulge' in such
(There is also Art.14 infringement I think, but that
argument connects – across the bridge between culprits
and victims that has no takers – to Pushta evictions,
Lalkhet evictions, demolition of school for non-rich,
etc, and I will not clutter this
nexus-spotting-for-cynical-reading-only piece with
* Was this a case of allotment by DDA, with or without
essentiality-certificate of GNCT, in violation of
* In that case, will CBI tell whodunit (daughter of a
scam-accused teaches or taught here)?
* Or did GNCT subsequently issue
upgradation-permission in violation of Layout Plan?
* In which case, will Lovely-ji tell whodunit?
* By what monitoring process did field-staff spot
compoundable violation on one site and not all
violations on same site or identical violations on all
sites in the area?
* And (though the free seats compliance business has
become a joke) has either DDA or GNCT got this one on
any of their lists for show-cause notices?
* If not, why not? And if so, wassup with that notice?
This is a messy one. But would Goenka be fretting
Fat chance! It has told us it "had constructed these
classrooms with the knowledge of authorities", besides
(a) have not acted despite court orders and will find
sudden mid-term action difficult to justify in court
in view of previous order,
(b) have long lists of show-cause notices against
schools and may not survive a pick-and-choose
offensive by well-paid senior counsel,
(c) are announcing imminent changing of standards to
make all violations by schools "regularisable" and,
with regularisation so hot-hip-and-happening, will
surely falter while showing-cause as to why their
proposed action should not be considered unfair,
(d) seem, in any case, inclined to confine their case
to compoundable violations for pragmatism,
The Nexus Never Dies.
What else explains the opportune timing, huh?
In another sideshow in the Great Regularisation Mela,
we have petty-professional objecting to "petty
politicians" demanding regularisation of industries in
DMP violation -- with NCR ideas in DMP violation.
Those missing Mr Jagmohan could make-do with the
My-Plan-Your-Choice style piece in name of DMP, by an
This "expert" writes frequently (exclusively?) in
Express Newsline, which has same-style DMP slant.
Maybe it should do a story on Goenka-case, with
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.