Supplementary Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioners

I, Gita Dewan Verma... working as Planner of Master Plan Implementation Support Group... do hereby state on solemn affirmation as follows:

1. I say that I am the Planner of the petitioner No.1 in the above matter and am conversant with the facts, records, and circumstances of the case. I am competent to make this affidavit on behalf of the petitioners.
2. The above writ petition was first listed on 31.10.2002 when this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct notice to issue to respondents. Thereafter a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 DDA on 17.1.2003 and a rejoinder thereto was filed on behalf of the petitioners on 18.2.2003. The respondent no.2 Union of India has stated that it does not wish to file any counter affidavit i the matter. When the case was heard on 17.12.2003, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the following order:
   • “Master plan gives general idea, zonal development plan will give some more details about use of the land and lay out plan will give all details, therefore, the petitioner has to point out from all these three documents as to how the breach is committed by the DDA.”
   • Pursuant to the aforementioned order dated 17.12.2003, I am filing the present supplementary affidavit.
3. It is submitted that violations are alleged in the instant writ petition for three types of Use Premises, viz, Convenient Shopping Centre (CSC), Local Shopping Centre (LSC) and Community Centre (CC), and that these are covered in various levels of Plans as follows:
   • (a) Master Plan does not show these in land use plan, but sets out detailed standards, including number of low-turnover shops (ie, fruit /vegetable and service/ repair) and informal units (ie, “Retail/service unit, stationary or mobile, working without roof including small khokhas on roadside”). MPD-2001 provides for nearly 4 times more shops than MPD-1962 primarily to accommodate these, as shown in the table annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P/‘A’.
   • (b) Zonal Plans indicate CC and LSC (but not CSC). Plan for J–Zone, in which part of Vasant Kunj (Sector-D) falls, is not notified. F-Zone Plan, in which the rest falls, reiterates in para-7.2.6, that “provision of informal sector in trade & commerce is to be followed as per the provisions of Master Plan” and earmarks 3 LSC and 2 CC in Vasant Kunj (A, B & C), as shown in the part reproduced at ANNEXURE-P/‘B’.
   • (c) Layout Plan shows size / configuration of all Use Premises. [[Since damn thing is huge, we crave etc to pass over bar]] a copy, with for CSC, LSC and CC Use Premises developed and not developed highlighted in different colours / textures. The copy is of a two metre size, which is unwieldly for being attached to this affidavit. Accordingly the PEtitioners seek leave to produce a copy of the same at the time of hearing of the case.
   • (d) Use Premise plans earmark within them various activities (shops, informal units, etc). These are not public documents and the Petitioners have access to them only for 1 CSC and 1 LSC (both in sector C-9) from boards outside them.
4. It is submitted that based on the above, the Petitioners can identify violations in terms of Use Premises functioning in contravention of Master / Zonal / Layout Plan stipulations and, in few cases, of plots / units within them functioning in contravention of Use Premise plans. A number of such violations are illustrated in the report commissioned to Planner to Petitioner No.1 by the hawkers’ association of which Petitioner No.5 is member and sent to DDA in May 2001. This report, prepared without benefit of Layout Plan, covers all developed Use Premises, and undeveloped ones marked by boards. The report is annexed as ANNEXURE-P/‘C’.
5. It is submitted that commercial Use Premises are being used in violation of various levels of plans as follows:
   • (a) The 14 CSCs developed thus far have no informal units. 13 also have no or inadequate fruit and vegetable shops. 12 have uses not permissible in CSC (offices, auto repair shop). All, therefore, are violative of Master / Zonal Plan stipulations for CSC and violative of Layout Plan that earmarks space for CSC only as defined in Master / Zonal Plan. In C-9 CSC shops earmarked for Fruit & Vegetable shops in Use Premise plan on the board outside are being used for other shops. In some other CSCs also side markets probably earmarked in Use Premise plans for low-turnover / informal units are occupied by other shops. In D-I CSC platforms probably meant for informal units have been taken over by other shop in course of this petition. These violations are summarised in the table at ANNEXURE-P/‘D’.
   • (b) The 5 LSCs developed thus far are, likewise, violative of Master / Zonal / Layout plans insofar as they have no informal units and no / inadequate Fruit & Vegetable shops. One (in B-7) violates F-Zone Plan that does not earmark it. One (in A) has several auto repair shops, not permissible in LSC. One (in D-2) has only a disused janta market, a use not contemplated in MPD-2001. In C-9 LSC shops earmarked for Fruit & Vegetable shops in Use Premise plan on the board outside are being used for other shops. These violations are summarised in the table at ANNEXURE-P/‘E’.
   • (c) The 2 CC sites are not built. One is occupied by Vasant Kunj Police station, etc, in violation of Layout / Zonal Plan.
6. Other Plan violating commercial use includes a problematic hub in the middle of Vasant Kunj – outside vacant CC site – including a privately developed Central Market, honoured with bhagidari prize by GNCTD and roadside shops functioning with MCD’s hawking licenses. This is marked in the layout plan [[that we crave, etc, to show-and-tell across bar]]
7. MCD has come out with ‘hawker policy’ of ‘pilot projects’ by one Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) in violation of the Plan (since no Use Premise for such ‘pilot project’ is contemplated) . The NGO has published in its widely circulated magazine an account of how Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ‘approval’ was obtained for this. This article is reproduced herewith as ANNEXURE-P/ ‘F’.
8. Cabinet has also approved a ‘hawker policy’ initiated by MoUD at instance of another NGO. This calls for Master Plan provisions for space for hawkers. Simultaneously, in disregard of existing provisions and misuse / misallotment, a Rs.30 crore project for redevelopment / beautification of DDA markets is to start in March 2004 (presumably with MoUD approval, as per s.23(3)), even though it has no basis in the Plan or Act and, in effect, jeopardizes imperatives of the MoUD policy approved by Cabinet.
9. In contrast to NGO initiatives in disregard of law that have become ‘policy’, citizens’ efforts to secure implementation of law have borne no fruit. Assurance of implementation of Plan provisions for hawkers given by DDA to this Hon’ble Court in affidavit of January 2003 and, before that, to PMO in a letter in October 2001, has not been kept and, with unrestricted disposal of commercial space continuing and now a beautification project for further benefit of beneficiaries of mis-allotments and misuse, is poised to become infructous. For DDA to allow this is a violation of its mandate.
10. It is accordingly prayed that this affidavit may be taken on record and appropriate orders passed by this Hon'ble Court.

sd/- (Gita Dewan Verma) DEPONENT