Dear Gita,

Thanks for a very detailed post.

We are still in middle game (chesswise) and NOT
trapped. When the game is not played by the Rules -
break the board, walk away and drag them onto your

1) Writing long letters etc. may not work - there is
already enough documentation to show engagement. It's
time for telegrams (obtain certified copies by paying
Rs. 3 extra) to Prez (as Central Government), short 1
page leters to LG, AKJain(as secy Enquiry Board), then
its time for the Real Monty.

2) Another route is also open (you wont like this
one), you can file RTIs "now" under the new law. This
saves 10 days. Here are the details - it would be
interesting to see if DDA is prepared for the RTI
onslaught. Asian Age had it today.

Here's another link (BETTER) to it since Asian Age
link stpos working after 24 hours due to poor
webdesign technology.

I am facing the same problem about procedural
bypassing in my fight against the Information
Technology Act 2005 amendments.


--- Gita Dewan Verma <[email protected]> wrote:

An illegal Board has started today illegal NGO-style
hearings at PHD House and VPSingh/Sajha-Munch, who
have made illegal demand for their nominee to be on
Board, plan to protest bureaucratic-style
outside DDA Vikas Sadan. we are trapped between two
illegal choices. we know we have been trapped. what
will we do now? *now*. the endgame has begun.  

The story so far:

An Asst Director in DDA issued letters inviting some
to present their objections/suggestions before the
Board of Enquiry and Hearing at 9:30 AM on
at PHD House.

Some letters were dispatched by courier (eg, mine by
Blazeflash Couriers Limited, *212715838)
[impelled by illegal demand of DunuRoy/VPSingh to be
on Board, I responded to Public Notice of 31.08.2005
for change of land use for builder scheme on nearly
Ha of District Park, in name of poor /
mumbai-model-for-delhi idea that originated in
of October 2002 between UDM Ananth Kumar and
VPSingh/Sanjha NGOs]

My letter and those to Rajinder & Nizamuddin (2 of 7
mpisg conveners who have filed detailed comment on
different chapters) and Ashok (one of dozens who
independent suggestions based on their mpisg court
matters, etc), arrived by courier at my address.
Afternoon of 29.09.2005 was holiday.
[My response of 28.09.2005, inclusive of request to
allowed, under Rule-9, personal hearing responses,
of NGOs, not based on prior engagements via Public
Notice, court matters, etc, was receipted at Vikas

Sarabjit, not invited, served notice-in-law to ask
be properly invited before 9:30 AM on 03.10.2005,
I called Asst Director for clarifications and
instead, that the composition of the Board itself is
illegal in terms of Rule-8.

I dispatched by courier an urgent application
u/s.41(3) to LG for examination of legality and
propriety of DMP-2021 hearings and suspension in the

Rajinder, Nizamuddin and Ashok decided to present
request for rescheduling of their hearings till
disposal of my application, for joint hearings, etc.
translated text of their letter:

03.10.2005: (or 02.10.2005 late night)
I saw Asian Age report that Poonam had spotted
in the day, about the proposed demonstration by
Sajha-Munch/VPSingh and wrote out complaint to
Commissioner (that, with copy to LG, should have
deposited by hand by now).
nalini, invited, called from bangalore to say she
written to DDA for rescheduling her hearing since
was not in town.

The Hearings started at PHD House. (I saw while
looking, as asked by the regn desk, for my name in
list of invitees the name of Dinesh Mohan and I saw
the hall KT Ravindran, ie, SanjhaMunch is aware of
start of hearings).

The event occurred in Hall. On the dais were DDA VC
Dinesh Rai (behind plaque that said Chairman),
by DDA Commissioner-Planning AK Jain (to his right,
left in audience view, behind plaque that said
Convener) and TCPO Chief Planner KT Gurumukhi (to
left, behind plaque that said Member). On left of
Gurmukhi were, behind Member plaques, a DDA engineer
and an official of its DMP2021 office. On the right
AK Jain was another official of DMP2021 office and,
after tea, an MCD Planner, both also behind Member

The session before tea was hijacked by those named
authors of the Plan in various sub-groups who have
also filed objections/suggestions on it (they
as Institute of Town Planners India, DUAC Heritage
Committee, and Punjab-Haryana-Delhi Chamber of
Commerce, though I doubt if they have filed proof of
permission to file on behalf of all their members,
including in case of ITPI KT Gurumukhi and AK Jain
MCD Planner seated on the dais). Each of these
responses were presented by several people. OP Jain
also presented the response of INTACH, not invited,
and Ashish Maitra of ITPI added to response of
Heritage Committee (though I doubt if he/ITPI had
sought or been granted hearing under Rule-9 on other
responses). The PHDCC people presented in large
numbers (when Poonam Prakash objected, she was
to present her response before the PHDCC people
resumed). The FICCI people had not appeared and in
their slot Delhi Medical Association people (who
been demanding nursing homes in residential areas
the relaxation on plot level controls for which
Notice was issued in DMP2021 Public Notice period)
broke queue on plea of having work to do.

All these institutional NGO people left after having
their say or tea, except PHDCC people who continued
present their ideas in the post-tea session, after
which some people were called upon to present their
responses: a forum for Lal Dora, one of ice-cream
manufacturers, two market associations. Then I was
asked to present. Having already, over coffee, given
AK Jain an earful about the presence of DMP2021
authors amongst those allowed hearing and asked
Rai to kindly ensure that my hearing happens
to Rules, I began by saying I wished to first
that my hearing is as per Rules.

I pointed out proviso to Rule-9 that allows the
to disallow personal hearing and mentioned the
Notices on which that had been exercised to deny me
hearing and asked why it had not been exercised to
deny hearing to DMP2021 authors who had wasted our
time in the morning. Pointing out Rule-9 opportunity
for allowing hearing on responses of other persons I
asked why that had not been allowed to us while the
authors spoke even as it was allowed to ITPI on the
Heritage Committee presentation. With reference to
Rule-8 I first asked MCD Planner who had seated
himself on the dais post-tea to please introduce
himself to us. I then pointed out Rule-8(2) that
requires presence of at least three Board Members
beginning to end of any meeting and asked the
to please identify the three on the dais. He
identified himself and TCPO Chief and said AK Jain
Secretary / Convener and that the engineer
EM and MCD Planner represented Commissioner. I asked
again for the third member other than DDA VC and
Chief. AK Jain said he was convenor and I informed
him, with proper regret, that he could not be a
under the Rules and asked again for the third
There was silence and I said I would proceed if they
assure me this Board and this meeting are legal. AK
Jain said proceed and Dinesh Rai nodded. I then said
would read my 1p response, since it was not open to
the Board to hear me except in connection with it. I
proceeded to read, asking them to take note of the
parts that made clear it is not objection/suggestion

=== message truncated ===


Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005