Have you been getting any responses to these section 4
emails you have been spamming everyone with?? Would be
most surprised if you did. Why not try filing a
section 6 like everyone else?? just for once !!!

PS. The average babu is genetically programmed to
ignore text having more than 10 words without
punctuation marks. <smile>

Sarbajit

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

Madam / Sir,

I am writing to reiterate my request of 16.10.05
(included in this message).

I believe MoEF needs to publish information relating
to NBSAP because NBSAP is expected to implement
Biodiversity Act and because of MoEF Press Note of
05.10.05 and to DJB restructuring because the
restructuring impinges on central law (Delhi
Development Act and CGWA & EIA notifications under
EPA) and originates in Delhi Urban Environment &
Infrastructure Improvement Project of World Bank,
GNCTD & GoI/MoEF. (Besides, GNCTD is also ENVIS
partner of MoEF and MoEF concurrence was claimed on
byelaw-reform lately cleared by GNCTD, which
includes
legislative amendments that seek to transfer (to
MCD)
controls over land that vest in GoI, while the Bill
recently tabled by GNCTD seeks to transfer (to DJB)
controls over ground water that vest in GoI even as
the preliminary reform to isolate water supply
development & finance from the DD Act regime by
creating DJB in 1998 was not even evaluated in Delhi
Master Plan or NCR Plan revisions, evidently on
account of DUEIIP).

These are but two instances on which information of
GoI perspective within ambit of constitutional
obligations is hardly available while
non-governmental
views/advocacy are well publicised. (Urgent among
other such issues are those relating to the GATS
offer
that GoI will be negotiating at Hong Kong next
month,
with which legislative amendments being pushed by
GNCTD are consonant and which also includes
sub-sectors for which MoEF is still in the process
of
formulating guidelines for partnerships with even
domestic private sector though certain NGOs/groups
are
already precipitating partnerships in states
including
Delhi, Uttranchal, Kerala and Rajasthan).

In my view, misinformation resulting from
non-governmental advocacy on issues about which
official information is not available is deleterious
and in case of RTI use/advocacy regarding DJB even
diabolical. In any event, such situations now merit
rectification in view of RTI Act, in which I urge
you
to read s.4(1)b for suo motu disclosure in context
of
the purpose of the Act and of its requirement of
publication in manner that facilitates (s.4(1)a) as
well as minimises (s.4(2)) resort to s.6. In this
perspective of RTI (and in view of my many requests
for clarifications and related comment on draft NEP
made prior to RTI Act), I read in s.4 ample
justification for my request and would deeply
appreciate response from MoEF.

Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc: [email protected]

 

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

Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gita Dewan Verma <[email protected]>
Subject: RTI request re National Biodiversity
Strategy & Action Plan / MoEF Press Note
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],
    [email protected],
[email protected],
    [email protected],

[email protected],

[email protected],
    [email protected]delhi.nic.in, [email protected],
[email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]

TO: All officials designated for Right To
Information
Act, 2005, vide MoEF Notification
No.24011/34/2005-GC
dated 26.09.2005 (via e-mail to e-mail addresses
provided therein)

SUB: Request to receive as information / request

for

rectification of omission u/s.4(1)(c), viz,
non-publication of all relevant facts pertaining

to

decision announced vide MoEF Press Note dated
05.10.05
titled "National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan
submitted by the NGO Kalpvriksha has been

rejected"


Madam / Sir,

Among RTI Act provisions that came into force on
15.06.05 is: "4 (1) Every public authority shall -
...
(c) publish all relevant facts while formulating
important policies or announcing the decisions

which

affect public". Relevant facts pertaining to the
decision announced vide above-mentioned Press Note
have not been published on MoEF website.

Kindly receive this as information / request for
rectification of omission u/s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act,
2005, along with the note justifying urgency that

is

placed in public domain for further information,

at:

 

http://plan.architexturez.net/site/anomie/RTI/nbsap

As set out therein, relevant facts needing to be
published include:
(1) facts of GEC supported NBSAP, fresh NBAP by

MoEF

and IUCN support to NBA  
(2) clarification about conformity of these with

the

Biological Diversity Act, 2002
(3) information pertaining to those associated

with

NBSAP, including of RTI requests by them

I am not aware of Rules for s.4(1). Kindly let me
know
the fee/charges for processing this request.

Please

note that I do not wish to make a request u/s.6.

If,

however, I am required to do so for any reason,
please
let me know, also which of the 22 CPIOs I should
apply
to.

Thanking you

Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
1356 DI Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
Ph: 26895840, 26132921; e-mail:
[email protected]

 

 

               
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/

 


               
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mpisgmedia mailing list
[email protected]

http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia

 


        
               
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com