To: MCD Commissioner


Dear Sir,

1. Apropos the drive against violations of building
regulation regime, on 18.01.2006 Delhi High court has
reportedly given MCD 4 weeks for implementing, inter
alia, the following directions:
* uniform (no pick-and-choose) action against all
recent (after 2000) violations and listing of targeted
violations on websites of MCD & DDA and notices in
prominent places (so as to dispel fear / confusion)
* priority action against violations by elected
representatives / big-fish, especially malls &
non-residential complexes in residential areas
including Lal-Dora (so as to create an atmosphere
conducive to rule of law)

2. I make the following requests under Right to
Information Act, 2005:
(a) I request schedule/action-plan for compliance in
Mahipalpur-Mehrauli / Vasant Kunj area, specifically
for constructions enumerated in para-3.
(b) I request this under s.4(1)(d) in view of
communications related to the ongoing drive and
pending court matters enumerated in para-4.
(c) I request this with urgency (as no time frame is
stipulated for s.4(1)(d), I refer to 48 hours proviso
under s.7(1) for urgent requests) and, in any event,
well before any action is effected in the area so as
to allow me time to take steps as required for pending
court matters
(d) I request that this e-mail (text of which I am
also dispatching by courier) be acknowledged and I be
told forthwith if MCD wishes to reject my request

3.  I request, in particular, information apropos the
following:
(a)
Delhi Govt Mandi at Andheria Morh (non-residential
complex abutting old residential area on site where
old shops and homes were summarily demolished in 2000,
constructed in 2003-04 despite DDA objections, with
Chief Minister gracing foundation stone and
inauguration functions and unauthorised colony being
carved out on appurtenant land after burying Mehrauli
ridge forest)
(b)
Delhi Govt super-speciality hospital in Green Belt
south of D2 Vasant Kunj (non-residential complex under
construction since June 2004, after Chief Minister
graced foundation stone function in 2003, even as land
use change was considered only in July 2005 by the
Authority of DDA on which MCD is represented)
(c)
So-called farmhouses around Delhi Govt
super-speciality (including, besides party-places
brought under pay-and-misuse policy of 2004,
free-of-charge misuse in form of architecture college,
objections to which were duly filed in response to
MPD-2021 - because its Director, one AGK Menon,
chaired a MPD-2021 sub-group and advocated also in
media identical illegalities - and await hearing and
disposal by the Board on which MCD is represented)
(d)
Commercial projects in Masudpur (including illegal
market honoured for Bhagidaari by CM in 2001, despite
requests to DDA & MCD from residents and traders to
shift all unplanned commerce to vacant planned
Community Centre site, and one Sun-City Mall coming up
on that site since 2005, for which MCD demolished
vegetable market that councillor had got built in some
tehbazaari Bhagidaari in 2001 despite objections of
area residents and traders).
(e)
Mega-housing construction since 2004 in Sultangarhi
scheme near 30-year old MCD primary school at Rangpuri
Pahari (with duly filed suggestion for expansion of
site of school to the stipulated minimum size pending
since response to Public Notice of 15.09.02 for
proposal to change land use from rural for the scheme,
on Board for Enquiry & Hearing for which also MCD was
represented)
(f)
Building violations on school sites in Vasant Kunj
(which impede the statutory Neighbourhood School Plan
for common school system and emanate largely from
Delhi Govt policy of illegal permissions and were to
be rectified in 12 weeks by Court order of 27.10.04 in
WP 8954-59/2003 in which MCD was Respondent No.4)  

4. In my open letter of 23.12.05 to you about the
ongoing drive (published by the Pioneer on 25.12.05),
I had mentioned constructions such as the above and
their proponents resorting to diversionary
obfuscation. I had also asked, in view of orders for
action against collusions responsible for violating
the existing building regulation regime, about action
against collusions responsible for unauthorised
construction of a substitute regime (by some oral
order and 1 cr from USAID), viz, USAID-made MCD Bill /
building-byelaw project. This question is germane to
my pending RTI requests, including one transferred by
MoUD to MCD on 09.01.2006. Those RTI requests arise
from my representation of 17.11.05 about dissolution
of MCD for pursuit of the USAID Bill in 2003-2005, in
which I had offered a list of coincident schemes to
illustrate persistent default in duties. The above are
part of that and the collusions are also set out in
responses duly filed from the area to MPD-2021 Public
Notice on basis of following court matters, in view of
which, especially, I invoke for my instant request
s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act:
(a)
Apropos 3(e) & (f), in WP 8954-59/2003 (MPISG & Ors
v/s DDA & Ors) I signed for lead Petitioner and MCD
claimed no role while undertaking to abide by orders.
MCD is seized of non-compliance of order of 27.10.2004
and efforts to secure non-adversarial compliance
through letters (including ones forwarded to MCD
Commissioner by Delhi Govt for action and ATR to me),
my intervention of August 2005 in NGO PIL WP 3156/2002
in which MCD is party, and MPD-2021 Public notice
responses referring to these.
(b)
Apropos 3(d), unplanned commercial development is
subject of WP 6980/2002 (MPISG & Ors v/s DDA & Ar) in
which I signed for Petitioner No.1. MCD is seized of
this through letters, intervention in WP 2334/2005
(Dharam Singh & Ors v/s MCD & Ors) against MCD-NGO
bhagidaari model in Sewa-Nagar, confidential CVC
reference (arising from my complaint about that) that
Chief Secretary forwarded to MCD Commissioner for ATR
to me, response to MCD Public Notice of 22.05.2005 for
vending committees, and MPD-2021 Public notice
responses referring to these.
(c)
Apropos 3(a) to (c), these are pointedly referred to
in Rejoinder affidavits that I have sworn, as Planner
to the Petitioner, in WP 8523/2003 (Shiv Narayan v/s
DDA & Ors), PIL in which MCD is Respondent No.4 and
which seeks a-priori schemes for implementing Plan
entitlements of existing communities and stopping all
unplanned illegal projects in the area:
*
In Rejoinder affidavit of 21.04.2005 in reply to DDA
counter-affidavit I have summarised in Annexure-P/15
letters to Respondents pursuant to notice and enclosed
letters by which Delhi Govt forwarded to MCD
Commissioner for action and ATR my letter of 21.11.04
(& 17.02.04) objecting to pay-and-misuse policy for
farmhouses, my letter of 22.11.04 objecting to restart
of Sultangarhi scheme without compliance of court
order of 16.09.2002 by which it had been stopped, and
representation of 01.02.05 from the Petitioner for
expediting replies and stopping impugned schemes and
keeping other demolitions in abeyance meanwhile.
*
In Rejoinder affidavit of 14.11.2005 in reply to DDA
Additional counter-affidavit (disclosing illegality of
Delhi Govt Mandi and super-speciality) I have pointed
out that foundation stone / inauguration functions
were graced by Chief Minister and Delhi Govt has
approved expansion of super-speciality.
*  
In Rejoinder affidavit of 14.11.2005 in reply to MCD
counter-affidavit in which it has taken the view that
it has no role in the area I have disputed this
contention with reference to its Act, its role under
DD Act including in MPD-2021 Public Notice, its
activities in the area, implications of the
constructions for it, and its pursuit of illegal
policies such as for farmhouse misuse and
unconstitutional reforms / building-byelaws project to
actively subvert the grounds of the PIL while claiming
no role in it.

WP 8523/2003 arises primarily from non-compliance of
order of 16.09.2002 (stopping the Sultangarhi scheme)
in terms of the inquiry ordered to prevent
perpetuation of identical illegalities, despite
inquiry having been repeatedly sought, including at
hearing of objections duly filed by over 1700 families
in the area in response to Public Notice of
15.09.2002. MCD was represented on the Board for that
hearing on 27.01.2003. The PIL reiterates suggestions
and objections already presented to the Board and
raises further objections to proliferating identical
illegalities, relying also on the other PIL mentioned
above. All contentions are also reiterated in duly
filed responses to MPD-2021 Public Notice, awaiting
hearing and disposal by the Board on which MCD is
represented more strongly than before. For your ready
reference, main pleadings in WP 8523/2003 are at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/FILES/landpolicy
I am not a lawyer but it seems obvious that any action
for compliance in Mahipalpur-Mehrauli / Vasant Kunj
area of order of 18.01.2006 arising from other PIL
must be harmonised with this pending area-specific PIL
so as not to amount to misuse of that general order
and, also, that any action in the area by MCD will
create cause of action to make out a case for perjury
in its counter-affidavit of April 2005.

Thanking you and awaiting your response,

Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner


cc:

DDA Vice Chairman (wrt the court matters)

mpisg / az plan