Sh RK Vats
Commissioner (Land Management), DDA
Dear Sh Vats,
I am in receipt (by courier today, 11.02.06) of letter
No.PS/DLM/RTI/05/563-64 dated February 3, 2006, from
Sh SP Padhy, Director LM, referring to my RTI requests
of 20.1.06 and 30.1.06 and to three references from
you. Text of the letter is at the end of this message
for your ready reference.
I am perplexed by the reference to my RTI request of
30.1.06. I had made two RTI requests under s.6 to the
DDA on 30.1.06, neither which was made to Sh Padhy and
neither of the PIOs addressed has intimated me of
transfer to Sh Padhy. As such, I request clarification
of the RTI procedure by which I am in receipt of a
communication from LM Deptt referring to my RTI
request of 30.1.06.
I am also perplexed by a letter from Sh Padhy about my
RTI request of 20.1.06. That was made jointly to Sh
Padhy and yourself and also DDA Vice-Chairman and
Commissioner (Planning) and Director (MPPR) and
Director (RYP), under s.4, which is for suo-motu
disclosure and for which the Act specifies neither
time-frame nor penalties and no PIO responsibility.
Moreover, the request itself became infructuous with
DDA decision to make it so by fielding its bulldozers
before its reply. Sh Padhy?s letter, referring only to
WP 2112/02, also does not constitute reply to my
request, as all relevant facts relating to and reasons
for the administrative decision to initiate the
instant action are still liable to be disclosed to me
suo-motu under s.4(1)(d), not necessarily by / only by
Sh Padhy.
I am glad for DDA that it did not deploy those
bulldozers on 31.1.06 and 01.2.06, as directions in WP
2112/02 do not require or enable the action that was
proposed. In my e-mail of 20.1.06 I had urged DDA LM
Deptt to not recklessly resort to certain court orders
without consulting other DDA Departments and/or in
isolation from the framework of statutory mandate of
DDA and larger matrix of RTI / court matters
pertaining to DDA. I now urge DDA to not resort to
certain directions in WP 2112/02 in isolation from the
context of that matter and to satisfy itself that its
administrative decisions are not open to challenge
also for abuse of the judicial process.
Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc:
Sh SP Padhy (with apologies for inconvenience caused
to you by my lengthy letters and thanks for your
letter and invitation to attend your office in public
dealing hours which I reciprocate with invitation to
you to visit mine any time)
cc:
* Sh Dinesh Rai, DDA Vice Chairman
* Sh AK Jain, Commissioner (Planning)
* Sh PV Mahashabdey, Director (MPPR)
* Sh PM Parate, Director (RYP)
(for information, w.r.t. e-mail of 20.1.06:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00859.shtml
===============
Delhi Development Authority
Director (LM)
No.PS/DLM/RTI/05 / 563-64 February 3, 2006
Smt Gita Dewan Verma...
Sub: Submission of Information under RTI Act, 2005
Ref: Application I.D.No.371A dated 30.1.06
The undersigned perused all the letters sent by you
through e-mail dt.20.1.06 & letter dated 30.1.06.
Though the letters are quite lengthy the precise
information which is required by you from DDA, as is
learned from your letters is the circumstances in
which the DDA took a decision to initiate the instant
action in the Pusta.
In this regard, it is to inform you that the decision
to remove encroachments from DDA land was taken after
receiving the directions from Hon?ble High Court in
CWP No.2112/02 titled Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh.
If you further require any information you may attend
the office of the undersigned from 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm
on any Monday & Thursday.
sd/- (dt 6.2.06)
(S.P.Padhy)
Director (LM)
Copy to:-
1. CLM w.r.t. his Dy.No.360-A dt.31.1.06, 359-A
dt.31.1.06 & 299A dt.27.1.06 for kind information
===============
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com