Addl Secy & PS to LG
PIO, LG Sectt, Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054

Dear Sir,

Thank you for e-mail of 13.01.2006 about forwarding
mine of 28.12.2005 to DDA VC for appropriate action
within stipulated time-frame. I am unaware of
time-frame stipulation for s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005,
and request you to kindly let me know the same.

Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

 

--- [email protected] wrote:


---------------------------------

        Please find enclosed anapplication received
through E-Mail of Ms. Geeta Diwan Verma seekingcertain
information under Right to Information Act, 2005.


 


        It is requested that anappropriate action as
per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 inthe
matter be taken under intimation to this Secretariat
within astipulated time frame.


 


 


 


(V.P. RAO)


Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor


 


 


Encl: As above.


 


VC, DDA


U.O. No. RTI/05/RN/                               
Dated:


 


 


Copy to:


 


Ms. Gita Diwan Verma.


 


 


 


(V.P. RAO)


Addl. Secretary & PSto Lt. Governor


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

Dear Sirs,

I seekinformation about status of compliance of
directions for theLieutenant 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-publiciseddecisions 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 Iam not impleaded) that I should file a
petition. This was whileobjecting to my making a
submission, which I wished to make incontext of my
representation of 25/26.10.05 to LG / DDAChairman

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

wasattending the hearing in that context). I

construe

thestatement of DDA Secretary as DDA decision to
reject my RTIrequests / suggestions and invite a
petition. I am obviouslyaffected and since DDA
Secretary also stated before CIC thatreasons for
decisions need not be disclosed, I am constrainedto
request instead under s.4(1)(d) an array of facts on


which the said reasons might reasonably reckoned to
havebeen based. The three court judgments, and how
they relate tothe 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 residentsof Bhumiheen


Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhiwould
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
thatproposes flatted slum re-housing options and of
31.08.05 forland use change of Tughlakabad District
Park to residential forthe pilot-project for slum
flats for which this petition wasfielded. 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


apprehendthat recent press statements by Chief
Minister Ms SheilaDikshit, Delhi Urban Development
Minister Mr AK Walia and NewDelhi MP Mr Ajay Maken
are further pre-empting impartialdisposal of Public
Notice objections/suggestions. Withreference to news


reports of the judgment I has sought

a-prioridisposal

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 forencroachment removal around DMRC
constructions at Shastri Parkon Yamuna riverbed) "be


treated as a representation to theLt.Governor of
Delhi... Lt.Governor of Delhi is directed totake a
decision within 2 weeks from today. Lt.Governor of
Delhi would also ensure that his order is complied
with".

(I was party to joint representationdated 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
unauthorisedstructures on the riverbed by which a
portion of Pushta wassimultaneously being cleared.
Counter-affidavits in a writpetition I filed in

April

2005 have revealed that the DMRCconstruction at
Shastri Park was informally"sanctioned" at a meeting


in Rajniwas in 2003 anddoes not have even building
permit. I apprehend the affidavitof Secretary MoUD,
who is also DMRC Chairman, subsequentpresentation by


East Delhi MP Mr Sandeep Dikshit of ariverfront
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 itsunauthorised Shastri Park project on it

website

and that it maywell be pursuing further phases of

the

same, in defiance now ofcourt orders for demolition
of all unauthorised constructionsin Delhi. My writ
petition is in the matter of violations ofPublic
Notice process and frequently cited in my RTI
representations)

===
3. Judgment dated16.09.2002 in WP 4978/2002 (Delhi
Science Forum v/s DDA &Ar) stopping construction of
mega-housing in Sultangarhi ridgeperiphery while
observing "it is a fit case where theChairman of the


first respondent should see to it that

howauthorities

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
incentiveto a statutory authority like the first
respondent herein toperpetuate the same and to
indulge in other illegalities".

(This PIL arose from my communications since 2000and


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 mysubsequent Public notice and court

matters

and representations,including application of

01.10.05

under s.41(3) of DD Act to LGabout the composition
and functioning of the Board forMPD-2021, from which


arose my request of 15.12.05 unders.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