The Petition was filed in August 2006 caused by the absence /  deliberate suppression of information  to the Petitioners to  meaningfully reply to the Public Notices of July 2006 purporting to  incorporate Tejindra Khanna Committee's proposals. Amazingly I am  described as a "civil engineer" who was aggrieved by TKC. I never  engaged with TKC since IMHO it has no statutory basis. We were not  before the Court seeking private relief, just for the information to be  provided to us in time and an opportunity to participate by the  statutory processes. I agree with Poonam that there is a "slant" to  ToI's reportage, upon turning the page I was appalled to see on Page 2  of that day's ToI certain "news" reports attributed to the NASSCOM  chief (Mr.Kiran Karnik) which make incredible reading - virtually  portraying NASSCOM as the dalals between "panicked" IT professionals  and the MoUD.

P Prakash <[email protected]> wrote:The  TOI had yesterday ( 12/10/06) a front-page item titled “HC: Why just  four kinds of professionals are exempted?” This mentions a petition by  “Poonam Singh, a Professor from School of Planning and Architecture”. I  surmise from the reference in it to Justice Ravindra Bhat and Sarabjit  Roy that the item pertains to petitions titled ‘Poonam Prakash &  Others versus MOUD & Others’ that I and two others have filed that  came up for third hearing yesterday. The ‘reporter’ has not spoken with  me and has obviously not bothered to check even basic facts, such as  filing date, number of petitioners and their names and occupations,  etc. The item claims, as impact of yesterday’s TOI story, a question  that the court did not even ask about an issue that is not even before  the court in these petitions. The petitions were filed in July and  prayed for certain information and time to be able to effectively  respond to the public notices for
 proposals to modify MPD-2001 to  implement Tejinder Khanna Committee recommendations. The court had  issued notice and directed certain information to be provided for  filing responses. These directions were not complied with and we were  also not given hearing on the objections filed after the court’s  orders. An application was filed primarily for compliance and the court  has again directed respondents to file counter-affidavits.

Such  irresponsible reporting is nothing new and Mr Sarbajit Roy, quoted in  the items, is taking up the matter with TOI and I will also be  discussing with my counsel what, if anything, I need to do. I am,  however, more concerned about the larger issue of media  misrepresentation of professional viewpoints to ‘fit’ certain ideas. In  the present case, TOI seems to be supporting, besides TKC, expanding /  blurring the definition of professions. On the peg of my petition, it  has also hung a page-2 item, titled “Urban Planners want govt. to  change policy”. This quotes not the planner whose petition is  ‘reported’ on front page as well as on page-3, but Mr Ajay Maken (MOS  in respondent no.1 that has not replied) and Mr AGK Menon and Mr EFN  Rebeiro (both involved in advancing the TKC ideas that led to the  petitions). The impression conveyed is that the view of these ‘urban  planners’ are the same as of the professionals who have filed  petitions. This is nothing short of
 stifling peer discourse on  professional issues.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.3/473 - Release Date: 10/12/06
mpisgmedia mailing list + Planning collaborative at

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new  Check it out.