DDA's counter-affidavit, 17.01.2003

Herein I, Shri S.P.SATSANGI working as SENIOR ARCHITECT (S.Z) with the Respondent Authority, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :-

• A. I am working as SENIOR ARCHITECT (S.Z) with the Respondent Authority and I am well conversant with the facts and am competent to swear this affidavit.
• B. That the counter affidavit has been drafted under my instructions, I have read and understood the contents thereof and affirm the same to be true and correct.
• C. That the Respondent Authority reserve their right to file additional affidavit as and when required or as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court to do so.

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

PARA-WISE REPLY

1. The contents of para 1 of the Writ Petition is a wrong and denied. It is denied that the tender notice issued by the Respondent No.1 dated 12.10.2002, inviting offers for sale of 900 fully built up shops and offices on freehold basis in different parts of Delhi, is in total violation of the provisions of the Master Plan for Delhi read with Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It is most respectfully submitted here that the tender notice is in line with the financing of DDA under revolving fund technique, according to which The DDA acquires land and develops the same and disposes it, the fund that is generated out of disposing the developed land is utilized again for acquiring the land.
2. The contents of the para 1.2 of the Writ Petition is denied for want of knowledge.
3. In reply to the content of para 2 to para 10 of the Writ Petition, the Respondent craves reference to the provisions of the Master Plan for Delhi and Delhi Development Act, 1957, and that anything contrary to the MPD and DD Act, is wrong and denied.
4. In reply to the contents of the para 10 (a) of the Writ Petition, the Respondent craves reference to the DDA’s Tender Notice dated 12.10.2002, and that anything contrary to the said tender notice is wrong and denied.
5. The contents of para 11 of the Writ Petition is a wrong and denied. It is denied that the tender notice inviting offers for sale of fully built up shops will lead to further unplanned development of Delhi and in particular give rise to other consequent illegalities at the cost of rights and entitlements of legitimate stake holders. It is denied that the present proposal of the Respondent to sell fully built-up shops will be contrary to what was envisaged in the Master Plan provisions.
6. In reply to the contents of para 12 of the Writ Petition, it is most respectfully submitted here that the Petitioner has inflated the numbers for the informal shops which stand at 524 shops, and not nearly 900 as claimed by the Petitioner in the Petition... Table, etc
7. In reply to the contents of the para 13 of the Writ Petition it is submitted here that all the proposed shopping centres have not been developed. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Authority is committed towards development of all the proposed Centres. It is further submitted here that out of the provisions for 7 local shopping centres 3 shopping centres have been developed and that 2 of the shopping centres are under development. It is also pertinent to mention that part of the land for the shopping centre centre was under litigation and that land for 1 shopping centre is under encroachment. That there is a provision for 20 convenient shopping centres, out of which 14 have been developed. That there is a provision for 2 community centres out of which one is under development, and that the land for another community centre is under encroachment. It is further submitted here that the shops that have been developed, are nearly fully functional. And that it is wrong and denied that nearly one third of the convenient shops are lying closed. It is further denied that in local shopping centres, that have been developed recently, most of the shops, and in one, all the shops are lying closed. And it is submitted here that the Auto repair shops in local shopping centres and convenient centres have been provided as per the Master Plan provisions. It is categorically denied that in effect a third of the shopping planned for the area has been developed, only half of it is functional, and all of even this is being used for local commerce. It is reiterated that the out of the developed shop at different centres nearly all of them are functional.
8. The contents of the para 14 of the Writ Petition is totally wrong and vehemently denied. It is most respectfully submitted here that the most of the shopping centres have fruit and vegetable shops / booths. For example shopping centres in the many sectors of Vasant Kunj have fruit and vegetable shops / booths and space have been provided for the informal sector in conformity with the Master Plan for Delhi, these are Sector D-3, Sector D-4, Sector A-C, Sector C-8, Sector B-8.
9. The contents of the para 15 of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted here that there is a provision for 2 community centres, 7 local shopping centres and 20 convenient shopping centres in Vasant Kunj to accommodate all the requirement of the local population and that tender notice was issued in conformity with the Master Plan and keeping in view the local needs of the Population. It is further denied that only sixth of the planned commercial space is functional. It is most respectfully submitted here that the developed housing component is commensurate with almost the planned development of commercial space, offices, service shops, repair shops and informal sectors etc. And keeping in view the policy of the Respondent Authority, Master Plan for Delhi and Building Bye-laws, the Action will be taken against unauthorised and unplanned development.
10. In reply to the contents of the para 16 of the writ Petition it is most respectfully submitted here that in past the Respondent Authority had no specific Policy for the informal sector as the M.C.D. has been charging a certain fee termed as The Bazari for continued use of a particular space by such unit. It is further submitted here that as per the Master Plan the informal sector units locate themselves strategically near work centres, commercial areas, outside the boundaries of schools, colleges and hospitals, transport nodes and near large housing clusters. However a large number of informal units are either mobile or not covered by The Bazari. In the past Respondent Authority provided open platform for informal sectors but it was seen that there were not many takers for the same. Whenever such platforms were made available to the people, DDA was charging Rs.10/- per day. It is pertinent to mention here that Respondent Authority have now finalised a pilot project, according to which DDA would earmark the site for informal units in the various future commercial centres of the DDA and the said land can be handed over to the M.C.D. for further management. It is further submitted here that as per the Master Plan, in the developed shopping centres there is no definite provision for hawkers. However, the Master Plan states “It would be desirable if a few standard and efficient colorful designs for mobile units are evolved and are placed over the city.” Stationery unit for the informal sector has already been provided as per the Master Plan and the mobile units will be covered under the pilot project.
11. The contents of para 17 of the Writ Petition is not denied.
12. The contents of the para 18 of the Writ Petition is wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondent Authority did not respond to the request of the VKRPVEN. It is most respectfully submitted here that in response to the VKRPVEN’s request the Respondent Authority has initiated a pilot project for the informal sector / hawkers in one of the shopping centres of the DDA in Vasant Kunj. It is further submitted here that this will be extended to other shopping centres to accommodate unplanned hawkers.
13. That in reply to the contents of the para 19 of the writ Petition it is most respectfully submitted here that the Respondent Authority is duty bound to take action against the unauthorized encroachment / construction. It is submitted here that the matter is being examined and if the constructions are found flouting Building Bye-laws or the Master Plan appropriate action will be taken.
14. The contents of the para 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Writ Petition are matter of record and anything contrary to the record maintained by the Respondent Authority is wrong and denied.
15. The contents of the para 24 of the Writ Petition is admitted to the extent that the Ms Verma was told by the Commissioner Planning over the phone that the DDA has decided to initiate apilot project for hawkers in Vasant Kunj in response to the VKRPVEM’s report. It is also admitted here that the Ms. Verma wrote a letter to the Respondent Authority to suggest a course of action. But it is denied here that the disposal of shops will conflict with the DDA’s pilot project. The disposal are of formal shops and that hawkers will be accommodated as per the pilot project and in conformity with the Master Plan provisions. It is submitted here that the required space for the hawkers will be being designed in the proposed local shopping centres, convenient shopping centres and community centres. It is reiterated here that the use of the shops will be as per the Master Plan provisions and not unrestricted as being made out by the Petitioner.
16. In reply to the contents of the para 25 of the Writ Petition it is submitted here that the Respondent Authority have issued the Tender Notice, dated 12.10.2002, in conformity with the provisions of the Master Plan, and the Petitioner has no locus to challenge the said tender notice and as such petitioner has no case to mention.
17. The contents of para 26 of the Writ Petition is denied for want of knowledge.
18. The grounds and prayer clause is unsustainable in view of the above averments and submissions made in the foregoing paras, and that the petition should be dismissed with cost as the entire petition is lacks legal ground, and is devoid of any merits and it is further submitted that Respondent Authority have acted in accordance with established norms / laws.

sd/ DEPONENT