on 23.10.05 was reported GNCTD law deptt clearance for
*regularisation* of 11 industrial areas. On 28.10.05
was reported DPCC chief's claim of CM's assurance
about notifications for 17 and sympathetic treatment
of the rest. see:
CM's promise on industrial clusters

On heels of that meaningless announcement, on 29.10.05
was reported Delhi industries minister's Diwali-gift
of option to go freehold in industrial areas. see:
Govt clears the way for industrialists to own plots

This puts paid to options for rectifying misuse,
notably commercial, of planned industrial space to
solve the problem of non-conforming industrial use,
notwithstanding the reference in SC judgement of may
04 to prior order in this regard (secured by a
reluctant amicus, after similar gift-offer by then
LG). The combined shenanigans of dull-greens hollering
for closure of largely non-polluting units in name of
pollution, pale-pinks hollering for their
regularisation in name of workers, shady-greys
wheeling-dealing in blunders like bawana (prettily
portfolio-d by architect-planner oxymorons) have come
home in time for retail fdi.

any one seen any serious comment on retail fdi?


in cont of:

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

--- sarbajit roy <[email protected]> wrote:

How can they do a 11-A here when MoUD affidavit to
stated 70% INSITU is a significant change to DMP
can cleave fabric of society apart etc.. ??


sarabjit, i am posting this to the list. the
industries affair might now be of interest also to
others, with same motif surfacing in commercial use
decisions with bzzz on retail FDI (after noise on
mixed landuse and hawker-policy and quiet on
etc, besides on commercial misuse of prime
space despite reference in judgement of may 04). and
s.11A discussions should anyway be compulsory (btw,
next DMP2021 hearing might be Saturday)

deja-vu, complete with prices of onions (recall that
got us the dikshit govt?):
in oct 05 was reported demand for *regularisation*
23 industrial areas by Delhi Congress chief
and by Delhi BJP boss (19.10.05) and Asian Age said
gnctd law deptt has cleared 11 areas (23.10.05).
public notice of oct 04, of course, was for DMP
modification (notified may 05) for *redevelopment*.

my favourite, s.11A:
is in 2 parts - s.11A(1) allows DDA to make changes
that do not effect important alterations in the
character of the plan and which do not relate to the
extent of land uses and population densities (ie,
do not alter underlying policies/elements,
across uses, carrying-capacity based decisions);
s.11A(2) allows GoI to make any changes.

s.11A can be used for this because this is
contemplated in the Act (as part of definition of
development in s,2(d)). in case of industries even
s.11A(1) can be used because redevelopment is
for 3 industrial clusters in DMP2001 (ie, the idea
part of basic structure of DMP) and the
alternative-text suggestion I had filed in response
an example of how:

the oct 04 public notice proposal itself was
with details that did not conform to (other aspects
the) basic structure of the Plan and obvious intent
regularize in the garb of redevelopment (fully
now): glaring case of misuse of s.11A for purposes
unrelated / contrary to Act and Plan in
violation of s.11A procedures (starting with
publication by gnctd) and utterly misconceived in
terms of s.11A purpose (viz, rigidly-bound
flexibility: long-term plans will normally need
adjustments (s.11A(1)) or even alterations
and, in event of abject implementation failure (as
industries case) s.11A can help find pragmatic as
as just ways to getting back on course to purposes
the Plan and Act).

re MoUD affidavit:
that was prose by Jagmohan, unrelated to DMP / DMP
modification. ministerial megalomania on affidavit
useful only to extent of preventing MoUD
reading (pursuant to chief-ministerial megalomania
Khurana and Dikshit) in s.11A(2) unfettered powers
label the problem solution and be done with it. MoUD
affidavit does not vitiate the public notice per se
(recall that SC had not quashed it in Nov-Dec).

net net:
the s.11A public notice is not assailable, misuse of
s.11A process is (and happens to be inconsistent
with MoUD affidavit). the danger lies in forgetting
that it is the law that prevents misuse of s.11A and
provides the framework for rectification. reliance
MoUD affidavit will lead to the ludicrous situation
assailing s.11A to, in effect, divert attention from
its misuse (over and above the implementation
that that prose diverted attention from in the first
place): case of persistent abuse of the judicial
process to subvert the law.


[this is my considered view, for info. i am not
inclined to discuss the delhi industries mess and am
watching it for connections to the emergent
on retail fdi and RBH/industry policy for places


Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005