Yesterday  11 March 2006 Times of India published public notice inviting
"members of the public with particular reference to representative
bodies/interest groups/NGOs in NCT Delhi to share their views on the issues
contained in the terms of reference".
Notice informs us about the Terms of the reference and is issued by the
Secretary of the Committee?? which is not known. Members of the Committee
Tejinder Khanna, former LG, Delhi, Syed Shafi, former Chief Planner, TCPO,
EFN Rebeiro, Director, AMDA, S.C.Vats, MLA Delhi and Harsh Vardhan, MLA,
you can email at [email protected]
And in the court
Demolitions: HC refrains from ruling  Centre's application MCD for restoring
notification exempting Lal Dora areas from building bylaws
New Delhi, February 27
The Delhi High Court today refrained from passing any order on an
application moved by the Union Government seeking relief for minor violators
of building bylaws in the Capital.
A Division Bench of Justice Vijender Jain and Justice Rekha Sharma, which is
dealing with the ongoing demolition drive, however, issued notices to the
MCD and other parties for their replies on the Centre's application, and
posted the matter for hearing on March 22.
Appearing for the Centre, senior counsel Kailash Gambhir sought relief for
minor violators on the ground that the government had constituted a
high-powered committee with former Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Tejinder Khanna
to assess the magnitude of the problem and suggest a comprehensive strategy
to deal with the situation arising out of it.


some info on experts

Prof Rebeiro was earlier projected in the media as architect on the
He also was invited member for the team working for the USAID sponsored
building byelaws reform undertaken only on oral orders.
and I am told, his firm is currently working for two local area plans  (
which is still a proposal in the proposed municipal bill); vasant vihar and
karol bagh to suggest 'area specific building byelawas'.
It was rumoured that he was planning to resign from various committees after
COA  proceedings??

for comments of Mr. Shafi on demolitions
and response of the mpisg

----- Original Message -----
From: "H U BIJLANI" <[email protected]>
To: "Master plan issues in media" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] RTI request: EFN Ribeiro / MoUD-MCD expert panel

Full Marks even though Edgar is a good friend of mine and I hold him in


esteem. In any case what are the credentials of other chaps in the panel?
Have thy ever handled or controlled this activity at any stage and gaind
personal experience to be able to handle this grave situation. Holding a
position is one thing-being envolved in handling the issues as Nigam is
doing today is anothr. H.U.Bijlani
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:02 PM
Subject: [mpisgmedia] RTI request: EFN Ribeiro / MoUD-MCD expert panel

Mr PK Pradhan,
JS (Delhi Division), MoUD

Dear Mr Pradhan,

I just noticed a news item on ToI web edition (posted
14 Feb) about an MoUD nominated 5-member expert panel
to "look into the court driven demolitions" underway
in Delhi, quoting Mr Ajay Maken saying MoUD "will ask
MCD to file an affidavit in the court with the
proposed names":
One of the 2 technical experts proposed is "EFN
Ribeiro, well-known architect". As far as I know, EFN
Ribeiro is no-more architect. Council of Architecture
barred him from practice last year. That would make
nominating him as Architect illegal in terms of the
Architects Act. This is for your information.

For my information, please provide me facts of and
reasons for MoUD decision to nominate EFN Ribeiro as
expert in a Delhi matter - under s.4(1)(d) r/w
s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act, in view of the following:

1. EFN Ribeiro (with another) of Asso of urban
management & development agencies, AuMDA (which was
asso of metropolitan development authorities before he
became its director) is named first among Consultants
to MPD-2021. If that had been drafted as per
provisions the Act and MPD, no such panel would have
been needed. MPD-2021 is reportedly to be finalised
soon for MoUD approval. My applications of 01 Oct'05
under s.41(3) of DD Act and of 21 Dec'05 under
s.4(1)(d) of RTI Act about the Board for it have not
been disposed off.

2. EFN Ribeiro was Consultant to USAID-made MCD
Amendment Bill / new-byelaws exercise that claims also
MoUD support. The court orders are for enforcing
existing byelaws as per existing MCD Act. The conflict
is glaring and MoUD nomination of EFN Ribeiro
perplexing also because of transfer by MoUD to MCD of
my RTI query about the USAID-MCD exercise proceeding
from one oral order and 1 cr from USAID
(K-11013/29/2005-DDIB dated 09 Jan'06).

3. EFN Ribeiro's private firm is making for MCD Vasant
Vihar Local-Area-Plan for/by area-specific-byelaws,
with basis only in USAID-MCD Bill. This is assailed in
Rejoinder to MCD counter-affidavit in PIL for MPD
implementation for urban villages. MoUD has not
replied in that. MCD has not replied, in context of
that, to RTI requests about compliance of demolition
orders in respect of projects that PIL has shown are
unauthorised (but MPD-2021 / LAP could regularise).

4. EFN Ribeiro in an open-letter of 24 Aug'04 to MoUD
Secy (AuMDA patron), had claimed AuMDA had nothing to
do with MPD-2021 (which says otherwise) and that he
knew little about two Delhi Govt projects. I had said
in my letter of Jun'04 to MoUD Secy that these two are
ridge and riverbed violations of MPD-2001. I had
written to MoUD Secy because MoUD has MPD
responsibility and MPD-violating projects had been
honoured by one Indian Building Congress of which MoUD
Secy is patron. I do not know why EFN Ribeiro
(similarly honoured by that Congress, for a project in
Gujarat) wrote to MoUD Secy to defend/obfuscate Delhi
projects/violations that he said he knew little about
while also denying AuMDA role in MPD. I also do not
know if he conveyed to MoUD Secy my plannerly
clarifications to which he himself did not reply. MoUD
Secy also did not write to inform me of the
appropriate action that President's Sectt had asked
him (in Jun'04) to take on my letter in the matter.
Pendency of that was one of my objections to the
proposal of Sep'04 to regularise a commercial IT Park
built on the riverbed by DMRC (of which MoUD Secy is
Chairman). One of the Public Notices whose disposal is
impugned in my writ petition is that one.
Counter-affidavits show IT Park is fit case for
exemplary compliance of demolition orders.

5. The only writ petition I have ever filed on my own
behalf (the one mistaken for some PIL against a 6-Ha
IT Park) is targeted against subversion of the
planning process by authorities and attendant spawning
of unethical professional practices. In its
counter-affidavit MoUD has urged dismissal with costs.
I think I have far better grounds, of huge cost
already borne, to urge dismissal of those who take
from positions of authority in the Ministry of Urban
Development advantage of loose-characters in urban
development professions for extraneous pursuits - in
the instant case, in defiance of the authority of the
profession's Council and with apparent intent to
tamper with the authority of the Court.

I also urge MoUD to publish / provide the following
* particulars of all positions held by MoUD Secy,
whether Minister of State has charge of Delhi
Division, and names of all empanelled / appointed /
nominated experts having anything to do with functions
of Delhi Division
* view on my suggestion to designate DDA as JnNURM
SLNA for Delhi (as Delhi Govt, which refuses to accept
it has no mandate for city planning, has made now
typically puerile announcements of its own
Mission-Mode and CDP)
* reply to my RTI queries about JnNURM (now that MoUD
has completed empanelling consultants pursuant to its
JnNURM-CDP tender of Dec'05)
* reply to my RTI queries about USAID-MCD Bill (now
that MoUD has nominated EFN Ribeiro as its own expert
for purpose of advice to MCD and also empanelled for
JnNURM-CDP one of the two USAID consultant firms to
whom MCD had forwarded in Dec'05, for their
consideration and necessary action, my objection of
Nov'05 that led to the RTI query that MoUD transferred
to MCD in Jan'06)

Perhaps I need to clarify I prefer s.4 of RTI Act
because it is non-adversarial, stipulating neither
timeframe nor penalties. Prof Ribeiro could explain
better than I why those trained to explore the immense
potential of rigidly bound but veritably limitless
flexibilities of framework based planning prefer
non-adversarial approaches, regardless of their
motives. Apropos motives I read, in a situation of
planning practice regulated not by professional law
but by planning law, MoUD responsibility - heightened
in Delhi by the Constitution and at the moment by
GATS. From replies to RTI queries about GATS I gather
MoUD is sole valid stakeholder being consulted about
urban planning services / implications for other
services. I wish you clarity for this unenviable task.

Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

President, Council of Architecture
for information wrt to letter of Jun'04 about IBC
Awards, at:

Commissioner, MCD
for information wrt letters re Bill and demolition
drive, last at:

Sh M Rajamani, JS (UD) / CPIO MoUD
for information in continuation of prior RTI requests

Sh A K Mehta, Director, MoUD
for information in continuation of prior e-mails re


mpisgmedia mailing list + Planning

collaborative at

mpisgmedia mailing list + Planning

collaborative at


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 2/17/06


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/06