To
PIO #1 JS (Conservation-I) & PIO #2 JS
(Conservation-II) / AA #1 Spl Secy (Conservation
Issues)
PIO #4 JS (Cross-Cutting Issues-II) / AA #2 Spl Secy
(Cross-Cutting Issues)
PIO #5 JS (Pollution Abatement-I) / Addl Secy AA #3
(Pollution Abatement)
PIO & Member Secretary / AA & Chairman, CPCB
PIO & Member Secretary / AA & Chairman, National
Biodiversity Authority

Dear Madam / Sir,

Please refer to my RTI requests of October-November
2005, precipitated by MoEF press note response of
05-Oct-2005 to organised civil-society agitating about
NBSAP. Pursuant to MoEF press note response of
16-Nov-2005 to organised civil-society agitating about
NEP and EIA, I had specifically requested disclosures
under s.4 of RTI Act, 2005, about NEP and EIA Public
Notices in terms of details of consultations at
formulation stage, summaries of comments received,
procedures for due consideration, MoEF observations on
comments considered, etc, in my eml of 21-Nov-2005
(wrt to prior emls):
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00695.shtml
I noticed last week a new link "Rejoinder to Media
Reports" on home-page of MoEF website, seemingly added
in response to comment titled "Returned E-Mails" in
NGO (Centre for Science and Environment) magazine Down
To Earth (31-Dec-2005). The comment seems patently
mischievous, as it does not disclose the identity of
"civil society member" who received the standard
down-time bounce message and provides, instead, two
names: one in vein of sample of large populace that
sent comments by snail-mail and were (emphatically,
emphasis added by CSE DTE) instructed to use e-mail
and another with reference to a renotification demand
/ letter to MoEF after duration of Public Notice. The
rejoinder only says: "We may write to the magazine
pointing out that there was a technical glitch for a
couple of days, but not otherwise  >130 comments have
been received and this e-mail I.D. (list enclosed) and
request that the same be published". The enclosed list
is 7 pages of screen-shots of inbox of the eml id for
comments since 01-Oct-2005.

I now request the following information under
s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005:

(1) Reasons for MoEF decision to make suo-motu
disclosure about EIA Public Notice in this form. I am
affected-person in view of my RTI request of
21-Nov-2005 for disclosure, for both EIA Public Notice
and the prior NEP Public Notice, in different form
(that would also have taken care of the irresponsible
CSE DTE comment).

(2) Details of guidelines, etc, to authorities for
ensuring that public at large (not just members of
organised civil-society) benefit from Public Notice
process. I am affected-party in view of apparent MoEF
preoccupation with NGOs and specifically because I
have had no response to my eml of 30-Nov-2005 about
EIA Public Notice issued (for Vasant Kunj Malls) by
DPCC on 28-Nov-2005:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00706.shtml
To 3(d) therein I might add that CSE Director was
chairperson of the sub-group of which DPCC Member
Secretary was member. It is also pertinent that in
pendency of DPCC Public Notice the NGOs have already
moved Supreme Court, on basis reportedly also of
information secured from DPCC under RTI Act, even as
PIO for DPCC is not indicated on DPCC website for
public at large.  

(3) Particulars of all other authorities empowered to
issue EIA Public Notices in Delhi. This is in context
of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation EIA Public Notice of
06-Jan-2006, about which it has not replied to my RTI
request:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00783.shtml
I am affected-person in view of MoEF letter confirming
previous EIA violation by DMRC in reply to mine about
DMRC claims in my sub-judice writ petition.

(4) Particulars of all instrumentalities for
administering central environment laws in Delhi,
including institutional linkages between MoEF and
Delhi Govt, including for DUEIIP. This is in view of
apparent non-implementation of environment law under
the garb of Bhagidari program alternatives, about
which I have already sought clarification from Delhi
Govt Environment Deptt, Forest Deptt and DPCC:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00784.shtml
I am affected-person in view of issues raised in my
prior RTI requests as well as my response to NEP
Public Notice seemingly originating from fuzziness at
this level. (Also PIOs for Forest Deptt and DPCC are
not indicated).

With apologies for errors, I am addressing this eml to
those PIOs/AAs in the lists available on MoEF website
whose jurisdictions appear to me to cover my requests.
I think EIA issues might be falling in purview of *IA
Division* under PIO #4 JS (Cross-Cutting Issues-II) /
AA #2 Spl Secy (Cross-Cutting Issues) or, since DPCC
website states its powers are delegated by CPCB, of
*Admin of CPCB* under PIO #5 JS (Pollution
Abatement-I) / Addl Secy AA #3 (Pollution Abatement),
or under *CPCB* Member Secretary (PIO) / Chairman
(AA), and administration of forest / biodiversity laws
in Delhi might be falling in purview of
*Biodiversity*, *NBA*, *Eco Task Force*, *CEMDE*, etc,
under PIO #1 JS (Conservation-I) & PIO #2 JS
(Conservation-II) / AA #1 Spl Secy (Conservation
Issues) and/or under *NBA* Member Secretary (PIO) /
Chairman (AA). Accordingly, this eml is addressed to
eml ids provided for these offices, with copy to the
two officers who have been kind enough to reply to my
earlier communications on particular points.

In case my eml is appropriately addressed, I seek
expeditious consideration of my requests. In case it
is not, I request that it be forwarded (and I be
directed) to the concerned PIOs/AAs, or departments
(since I am not resorting to s.6 of RTI Act), so that
I do not have to bother other officers with my emls. I
clarify that my requests to MoEF are largely limited
to: (a) sanctity of Public Notice procedures in MoEF /
under MoEF administered laws and (b) administration of
environment laws in Delhi. I also clarify that I have
no interest whatsoever in extra-statutory
participatory discourse or policy advocacy.

Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner