MCD split is CM proposal, not Delhi Govt proposal (and
evidently not political consensus proposal). would
that be routine darbaari-bhagidaari great-governance
or desperate resort to reform mantra to divert
attention from MCD Act violations / MCD mis-governance
by unstoppable grass-eating fence?

====MHA reply dated 31.01.06====
With reference to the your letter dated 31st January,
2006 on the subject noted above, I am to inform you
that a proposal received from the Chief Minister of
Delhi regarding division of the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD) into smaller municipal bodies, as
recommended by the Balakrishnan Committee and the
Virendra Prakash Committee, is under examination in
the Ministry of Home Affairs. No decision has so far
been taken in this regard.


Part-II (i) of RTI Application deposited on 31.01.06
in Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI

Please refer to the news item on front page of HT
dated 31.01.06 (text annexed) reporting a decision
MHA to consider / prepare a note about splitting
to be discussed at a meeting chaired by the Minister
later this week. I am unable to locate on MHA
any facts pertaining to this decision / formulation.
am also not in receipt of any information about
reasons for the same as affected person in view of
representation dated 17.11.2005 to Dr KS Sugathan
JS(UT). I request all relevant facts / reasons
/ pertaining to the said decision / formulation
s.6(1) r/w 48-hour proviso under s.7(1) of RTI Act,
2005, in view of the following:

1. In my representation of 17.11.05 to JS(UT) I had
sought procedures for informing / urging Central
opinion in regard to MCD, in effect contending that
proliferation of unauthorised construction in Delhi
recent years owes not to structural infirmities in
but to preoccupation with the pursuit of
unconstitutional USAID-sponsored Bill for
building regulation regime in name of reform. My
letter was copied for information to MCD
and Delhi Govt Chief Secretary and to JS (DD) in
(as building regulation functions of MCD fall under

2. On 21.12.05 I wrote again to JS(UT) with
to a news item about a high-level meeting called by
Chief Secretary at which former MCD Commissioner had
stated that byelaw business / MCD Amendment Bill had
ensued only on basis of some oral order and 1 cr
USAID. In this I had reiterated that I perceive
prima-facie collusion between USAID and MCD/Delhi
Cabinet to subvert the constitutional authority of
Govt of India and had enclosed the requests for
information that I had made, under s.4(1)(d) of RTI
Act, by e-mail to Delhi Govt and MoUD in this

3. I have received thereafter the following
(a) Copy of F.No.13/102/2003/UD/Pt.file.II/14421 of
20.12.05 from Delhi Govt Dy.Secy (UD) to MCD
Commissioner, forwarding copy of mine of 17.11.05
take appropriate action at your end and furnish the
ATR/comments to the representationist...".
(b) Copy of no. D/925/EE(B)/HQ of 22.12.05 from MCD
(Bldg.) HQ to RM Kapoor & Bimal Patel (private
consultants engaged for the USAID-sponsored Bill),
forwarding copy of mine of 17.11.05 "for
and further necessary action".
(c) Copy of No.K-11013/29/2005-DDIB of 09.01.06 from
Under Secy MoUD (Delhi Division) to MCD
with approval of CPIO, enclosing my e-mail of
mentioning "a high-level meeting regarding municipal
law / byelaw reform. As this Ministry has no
information on this subject, you are requested to
appropriate action in the matter in accordance with
the provisions of the RTI Act".

4. After the forwarding of my letter dated 17.11.05
the USAID consultants (presumably as affected
persons), I had reiterated my s.4(1)(d) requests on
29.12.05 to Delhi Govt Chief Secretary on 03.01.06
MoUD. I had not bothered MHA further since it had
responded to my letter of 17.11.05 and since
regulation in Delhi does not fall under its purview.
Also developments pursuant to court orders for
demolition of unauthorised (in terms of the existing
building regulation regime) constructions, which MHA
was reportedly monitoring, did reveal sufficiently
vested interests of Delhi Cabinet Ministers and
in a substitute regime and I assumed that MHA would
view that in perspective of my letters (especially
hypothesis of collusion to subvert authority of
Central Govt). And the letter of 09.01.06 from MoUD
MCD has officially brought my matter in the purview
RTI Act (making MCD Commissioner himself deemed CPIO
for it).

5. Now, without having replied to my letter of
17.11.05 for information of procedures for informing
urging Central Govt opinion in the matter of
scurrilously attempted legislative amendment to
building regulation functions of MCD and in pendency
of my same matter under RTI Act proceedings
MoUD & MCD, MHA has decided to consider a different
approach to MCD law reform for the same purpose on
basis of incidental remarks of the court in matters
pertaining to MCD building regulation functions in
which directions support my contentions. Apart from
not informing me under s.4(1)(d) of reasons for its
decision, MHA has also not published under s.4(1)(c)
relevant facts of the same and it is not even clear
why it is undertaking an exercise based on the
building regulation functions of MCD that fall in
purview of MoUD.

Under the circumstances, I feel constrained to
to s.6(1) r/w s.7(1) of RTI Act, 2005.


Hindustan Times, Tuesday, January 31, 2006 (Front

Mutilate MCD
MHA proposes smaller civic bodies

New Delhi, January 30

CONCERNED OVER the Delhi HC's directive to demolish
unauthorised constructions and its criticism of the
MCD's failure to check the proliferation of such
structures, the Home Ministry is considering the
of splitting the corporation into smaller civic

According to sources, an internal note prepared by
ministry says the MCD should be split into nine
separate agencies along the lines of the nine police
and nine revenue districts in the Capital.

Later this week, Home Minister Shivraj Patil will
chair a meeting of ministry officials to discuss
various aspects related to dividing the MCD.

Ministry officials say a division will ensure better
co-ordination among the three most important
- revenue, the police and the corporation.

A ministry official says there is a strong case for
splitting of the MCD.


mpisgmedia mailing list

+ Planning collaborative at