Addl Secy & PS to LG (PIO) / Secretary to LG (AA)
LG's Secretariat, Raj Niwas, Delhi - 110054

Dear Sirs,

I seek information about status of compliance of
directions for the Lieutenant Governor in three
judgments of Delhi High Court.

I urge you to consider publishing this information
under s.4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
as relevant facts related to important and
well-publicised decisions for compliance of other
orders of Delhi High Court.

And I request you to kindly provide (or refuse to
provide) to me, at the earliest, this information
under s.4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

I am affected person since DDA Secretary has stated
before Central Information Commission on 23.12.05 (in
hearing of a complaint about MPD-2021 Public Notice in
which I am not impleaded) that I should file a
petition. This was while objecting to my making a
submission, which I wished to make in context of my
representation of 25/26.10.05 to LG / DDA Chairman and
DDA PIOs/AAs regarding RTI Act and MPD-2021 and
subsequent requests to DDA and representation of
20.12.05 to LG. (The latter I had also made to CIC and
was attending the hearing in that context). I construe
the statement of DDA Secretary as DDA decision to
reject my RTI requests / suggestions and invite a
petition. I am obviously affected and since DDA
Secretary also stated before CIC that reasons for
decisions need not be disclosed, I am constrained to
request instead under s.4(1)(d) an array of facts on
which the said reasons might reasonably reckoned to
have been based. The three court judgments, and how
they relate to the petition that I have to file, are
as follows:

1. Judgment dated 25.11.2005 in WP(C) 8237-56/2005
(Bhumiheen Camp & Ors v/s DDA & Ors) directing, inter
alia, that "the site where the residents of Bhumiheen
Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi would
be relocated, will be decided by the L-G".

(My objections/suggestions are pending disposal by
Boards for Public Notices of 08.04.05 for MPD-2021
that proposes flatted slum re-housing options and of
31.08.05 for land use change of Tughlakabad District
Park to residential for the pilot-project for slum
flats for which this petition was fielded. The
pilot-project was already undertaken in affidavit
filed by Secretary MoUD in Supreme Court in the Yamuna
matter in September and the policy-option reportedly
came up on Agenda of Authority meeting on 19.10.05. I
apprehend that recent press statements by Chief
Minister Ms Sheila Dikshit, Delhi Urban Development
Minister Mr AK Walia and New Delhi MP Mr Ajay Maken
are further pre-empting impartial disposal of Public
Notice objections/suggestions. With reference to news
reports of the judgment I has sought a-priori disposal
of these in representation dated 03.12.05 to LG, cited
in my representation dated 20.12.05 about RTI).

2. Judgment dated 17.12.2004 in WP(C) 19808/2004
(Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v/s DDA & Ors)
directing that the petition (for directions to
authorities for encroachment removal around DMRC
constructions at Shastri Park on Yamuna riverbed) "be
treated as a representation to the Lt.Governor of
Delhi... Lt.Governor of Delhi is directed to take a
decision within 2 weeks from today. Lt.Governor of
Delhi would also ensure that his order is complied

(I was party to joint representation dated 26.12.04
for simultaneous consideration by LG against the
unauthorised DMRC constructions at Shastri Park in
defiance of court order of 03.03.03 against all
unauthorised structures on the riverbed by which a
portion of Pushta was simultaneously being cleared.
Counter-affidavits in a writ petition I filed in April
2005 have revealed that the DMRC construction at
Shastri Park was informally "sanctioned" at a meeting
in Rajniwas in 2003 and does not have even building
permit. I apprehend the affidavit of Secretary MoUD,
who is also DMRC Chairman, subsequent presentation by
East Delhi MP Mr Sandeep Dikshit of a riverfront
scheme to Delhi cabinet and recent remarks of New
Delhi MP have emboldened DMRC to expand, with no
reference to my pending writ petition, the description
of its unauthorised Shastri Park project on it website
and that it may well be pursuing further phases of the
same, in defiance now of court orders for demolition
of all unauthorised constructions in Delhi. My writ
petition is in the matter of violations of Public
Notice process and frequently cited in my RTI

3. Judgment dated 16.09.2002 in WP 4978/2002 (Delhi
Science Forum v/s DDA & Ar) stopping construction of
mega-housing in Sultangarhi ridge periphery while
observing "it is a fit case where the Chairman of the
first respondent should see to it that how authorities
of the first respondent herein were allowed to take
such decisions which admittedly are wholly illegal and
without jurisdiction. ...once such illegalities are
permitted the same in our opinion would give further
incentive to a statutory authority like the first
respondent herein to perpetuate the same and to
indulge in other illegalities".

(This PIL arose from my communications since 2000 and
the s.11A Public Notice precipitated by it was the
first in many years and the last before the one for
MPD-2021 for which a Board of Enquiry & Hearing heard
responses. The judgement and Public Notice are the
basis of my subsequent Public notice and court matters
and representations, including application of 01.10.05
under s.41(3) of DD Act to LG about the composition
and functioning of the Board for MPD-2021, from which
arose my request of 15.12.05 under s.4(1)(d) of RTI
Act, 2005, about reconstitution of the same. This was
also the subject of the Complaint that CIC was hearing
on 23.12.05).


Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc az plan