In continuation of Poonam's post, Please see the
following link:-
There was also a similar story in ToI (Delhi) of
1-Nov-2005 on pg4.

Does this mean that if one has to be invited to
comment on draft MPD2021, a person must file a Writ
first. Also, had this NCPEDP filed their objs/suggs to
the draft published on 8.Apr.2005 notice. Was there a
Board of Enquiry meeting on 31.Oct.2005? When was the
draft mpd2021 prresented for public feedback in 2001,
and does this enable this NCPEDP to get an private
audience now? etc. etc.

This is the composition of ncpedp from their website.
How can us ordinary folk compete with children of
italian gods??


Our Trustees

Founder Chairperson: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi

Chairman: Dr. V. Krishnamurthy, Chairman, National
Manufacturing Competitiveness Council

Executive Trustees

    * Mr. Subodh Bhargava, Former President,
Confederation of Indian Industry and Advisor, Eicher
Group of Companies
    * Mrs. Sheila Dikshit, Chief Minister, Government
of N.C.T. of Delhi
    * Mr. Jamshyd N. Godrej, Managing Director, Godrej
& Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    * Mr. Vikram Singh Mehta, Chairman, Shell Group of
Companies in India
    * Mrs. Shobhna Bhartia, Vice Chairperson,
Hindustan Times
    * Dr. Maya Thomas, Policy Advisor and Consultant
Disability and Rehabilitation.

Our Address

National Centre for Promotion of Employment for
Disabled People
A-77, South Extention Part II,
New Delhi 110 049
Phone: 011-26265647/26265648
Fax: 011-26265649
E-mail: [email protected]

[Text of story]
Delhi's buildings to be made disabled friendly

New Delhi: A day before a court hearing on making
buildings in the national capital disabled friendly,
authorities Friday invited suggestions for the city's
master plan from a leading disabled rights

The Delhi High Court is to hear a case Saturday on
making the Master Plan Delhi - 2021 (MPD) more
friendly for the disabled and the aged.

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has invited
recommendations from the National Centre for Promotion
of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP), which has
opposed the master plan.

After the DDA presented the master plan when for
public feedback in 2001, the NCPEDP had expressed
dissatisfaction and filed a petition.

They had also made some suggestions to the Delhi
Government, saying that no measures were taken in the
master plan to make it disabled friendly.

Following the petition, Delhi High Court asked the DDA
to present an affidavit along with photographs on the
progress of the work.

The NCPEDP had also demanded that disability experts
be involved in planning, design and implementation of
the master plan.

--- poonam prakash
<[email protected]> wrote:

The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
Sub: Public Hearing for the Draft Master Plan 2021
Respected Sir,
On 27 October 2005,  I had come to your office to
seek an appointment with you as I came to know that
on request of the former PM and the LG, you are
meeting some NGOs (Sajha Manch) on Master Plan
issues . I have already raised my concern over this
to the Director (MPD 2021). However, I was informed
by the staff of the office that I can not get an
appointment. For any issue related to the MPD 2021,
I have to meet either the Director or the
Commissioner(Planning). However, your staff
confirmed that the NGOs were having a private
hearing for more than a three hours with you
(Chairman of the Board)
On 3 October, in the first Public Hearing for the
MPD 2021, validity of the Board was raised by   Ms
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner, who was reassured that
constitution of the board and the hearing was as per
the rules. After that I checked the rules and her
objection appears not to be without basis.
This is very distressing for the following reasons:
In the first public hearing, much of the time was
given to groups and organizations (ITPI, PhDCII)
who were part of the making of the plan and rest of
the public was asked to hurry up to keep the time.
Professionals who responded through statutory
processes were heard for not more than five minutes
. The public hearing is to privilege  individuals
who are aggrieved rather than groups who have
already made interventions during the making of the
While I was in your office one of the Assitant
Director informed that the meeting is with Sajha
Manch and Gita Dewan Verma thereby creating an
impression as if both are one whereas it is well
known by the DDA    that this is not the case. This
kind of misinformation clearly undermines the
position of the professionals. Before the first
public hearing, it was  reported in the newspapers
about the protest they would be orgainising on 6
October (while Sajha Manch was fully aware of the
Public Hearing) but nothing was published about the
Public Hearing (letter was sent to the DDA to
intervene in the matter on 5 October 2005 to the
Director(MPD 2021)).  Before the second public
hearing,   same group has been given a private
hearing which is likely to be reported thereby
generating an impression of no public hearing by the
Considering that under rule 9 (Chapter III Proedure
of preparation of the Master Plan) ["Enquiry and
hearing - The secretary shall, after the expiry of
the period allowed under these rules for making
objections, representations and suggestions, fix a
date or dates for hearing by the Board of any
person, or local authority in connection with any
objection, representation or suggestion made by such
person or local authority or any person who may be
allowed a personal hearing in connection with such
representation, objection or suggestion to the draft
master plan, a notice intimating the time, date and
place of the hearing.Provided that the Board may
disallow personal hearing to any person, if it is of
the opinion that the objection or suggestion made by
such person is inconsequential, trivial or
irrelevant] only personal hearings  are allowed
whereas in the first public  hearing everyone was
permitted to listen without any formal application
for the same. On the other hand Sajha Manch has been
given a private hearing without giving me an
opportunity to hear them.

In these circumstances following are requested:
Response on the issue of the Board Consitution in
the First Public Hearing;        
Rehearing of my objection by the Board for detail
Information about the schedule of public hearings,
List of  all the individuals and groups along with
summary of their objections to be placed on the
website and;
to  give me a date   for hearing by the Board my
observations,   in connection with   objections
filed by Sajha Manch, under rule 9  mentioned above.

Poonam Prakash


Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005