Sh BK Gupta
Dy.C.L.A, Legal Wing, DDA

Dear Sh Gupta,

I am in receipt (by courier on 11.02.06) of letter
No.F.12(1)/2005/RTI/DDA/23 dated 07.02.06 from
Dy.Director (RTI) saying: "Please refer to your letter
dated 28/12/05 (E-mail) addressed to L.G., Delhi on
the subject noted above. In this connection, I am to
inform you that your letter (in original) has been
sent to the concerned Public Information Officer...".
It is copied to you as "(PIO concerned) along with the
application referred to above (in original) with the
request that necessary action may be taken at directly
the earliest".

I am a bit puzzled by RTI procedures in DDA and not
sure if Dy Director (RTI) (to whom I have not myself
written) had all the facts about this matter, which
are as follows: My e-mail of 28.12.05 was RTI request
to LG Sectt PIO & AA for information under s.4(1)(d)
r/w s.4(1)(c) about status of compliance of directions
for LG / DDA Chairman in three High Court judgments. I
received intimation of its transfer to DDA VC by
e-mail of 13.01.06:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00827.shtml
Thereafter, certain schemes in conflict with orders
mentioned in my RTI request about compliance were
announced. On 20 & 29.01.06 I made RTI requests under
s.4(1)(d) about those and on 30.01.06 wrote to LG
Sectt (which e-mail in reply of 02.01.06 is included
this message).

On 30.01.06 I also converted my request of 28.12.05 to
s.6 by depositing with fee an application to DDA VC
(deemed PIO by transfer of 13.01.06). DDA VC has not
transferred that, which I greatly appreciate since the
information requested is currently of greatest value
to the quasi-judicial purposes of the Board of Enquiry
& Hearing for MPD-2021 (of which he is chairman) and
the Committee for court orders for the riverbed (of
which he is member).

My request of 28.12.05 was originally under s.4(1)(d),
which is for suo-motu disclosure with no time frame or
penalties stipulated. If I had made it to DDA I would
have made it to Legal Wing, bit I made it to LG Sectt
as information published in terms of s.4(1)(b) did not
indicate DDA role in court orders for LG. I am
grateful to Dy Director (RTI) for bringing my original
request to your attention for earliest action and hope
it will also be of some use to Legal Wing in deciding
s.4 priorities to give effect to RTI Act.

Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc: for information re requests of 28.12.05 & 20.01.06
* Sh Dinesh Rai, DDA Vice Chairman
* Sh AK Jain, Commissioner (Planning)
* Sh RK Vats, Commissioner (LM)
* Sh PV Mahashabdey, Director (MPPR)
* Sh PM Parate, Director (RYP)
* Sh SP Padhy, Director (LM)
* [request to fwd to] Dy Director (RTI)


--- piolg.delhi@nic.in wrote:

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:18:35 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: [MOST URGENT] Re: RTI request re
compliance of High Court    
        directions for LG
From: piolg.delhi@nic.in
To: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@yahoo.com>

 

Your request has been forwarded to VC, DDA for
appropriate action. Please
find enclosed PDF file.

 

 

 

Addl Secy & PS to LG

 


LG Sectt, Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054

 


 


Dear Sir,

 


 


I am writing to urge LG Sectt to direct the DDA

and

 

the Police to refrain from any precipitate

demolition

 

on the embankment of the Yamuna in view of my

pending

 

RTI application / content thereof.

 


 


Please refer to your communication U.O. No.

 


RTI/05/RN/-- copied to me by e-mail dated

13.01.06,

 

about transfer of my request dated 28.12.05 (for

 


information under s.4(1)(d) about status of

compliance

 

of High Court directions for LG in three judgments

 

 

dated 16.09.02, 17.12.04 and 25.11.05) to DDA Vice

 

 

Chairman with request "that an appropriate action

as

 

per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 in

the

 

matter be taken under intimation to this

Secretariat

 

within a stipulated time frame". By e-mail of

15.01.06

 

I had sought clarification about time frame

stipulated

 

for s.4(1)(d) by rules that LG is Competent

Authority

 

to make. Meanwhile:

 


*

 


On Thursday 19.01.06 DDA employees announced,

 


informally at a site on the riverbed, a decision

for

 

precipitate action in conflict with court orders

for

 

LG (DDA Chairman) in judgments of 17.12.04 and

 


25.11.05, about which I informed LG Sectt by copy

of

 

my RTI request of 20.01.06 to DDA officials:

 


http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00859.shtml

 

 

*

 


In press reports of Saturday 28.01.06 Delhi urban

 


development minister has announced some plan for

 


riverbed clearance & re-housing, etc, in clear

 


conflict with aforesaid court orders for LG, as

set

 

out in my RTI request to Dr Walia:

 


http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00900.shtml

 

 

*

 


DMRC has announced through press reports of 26 &

 


27.01.06 ahead-of-schedule riverbed activity on

 


phase-2 (in pendency of EIA for which it has

issued

 

public notice) and on IT Park on riverbed (in

pendency

 

of my writ petition, in which DDA through its

Chairman

 

is respondent no.4 and which refers to judgment of

 

 

17.12.04 in a DMRC petition).

 


*

 


For information of LG Sectt, DMRC is not

implementing

 

RTI Act and RTI requests made to DDA (including

 


48-hour requests for information liable to be

 


disclosed under s.4(1)(c) and s.4(1)(d) about its

 


decision for precipitate action in conflict with

 


pending matters and responses to Public Notice,

 


including for IT Park) in the last week have not

been

 

answered.

 


 


While I am grateful to you for at least

transferring

 

my RTI request, I urge you to appreciate the

 


desperation that drives ordinary citizens like

myself

 

to resort to RTI to ask about compliance of High

Court

 

directions to LG, while authorities and ministers

 


perpetuate illegalities on the riverbed in name,

in

 

vain, of other court orders. I have made numerous

 


representations to LG about this state of affairs

in

 

general and the riverbed in particular. I now seek

 

 

directions against precipitate action.

 


 


Yours sincerely

 


Gita Dewan Verma, Planner