Demand for Public Notice

MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT GROUP

A synergy platform of citizens' groups with legitimate stakes in benefits of planned development

Secretary, MoUD

Sub: Demand for s.11A Public Notice for proposal to “regularize” lease condition violations

Ref: News reports (eg in box), letter of 22.08.04 (encl) and our PIL referred therein

Sir,

Subsequent to letter under reference, High Court has allowed on 27.10.04 our WP 8954-59/2003 (against mis-allotments / misuse of planned school sites to jeopardize equal access neighbourhood school system entitlements under Delhi Master Plan) and issued notice on 22.09.04 in WP 8523/2003 (against government projects in violation of Master Plan in CGWA notified Mehrauli-Mahipalpur area).

Our contention in WP 8954-59/2003 for schools applies equally to health facilities, viz, violation of lease conditions for free facilities is last in a series (starting with mis-allotment of public land to so-called charitable trusts) of violations of the Plan’s comprehensive provisions for equal access to facilities. Simplistic violater-pays “solutions” cannot substitute / compensate equal access guarantees, just as a so-called health-insurance fund cannot substitute hospitals. The case of non-functional charitable hospital building on planned site being up for sale while government builds in green belt a speciality hospital on site taken by it for government hospital amidst so-called “farm-houses” – mentioned in (8) and (9) of letter under reference and, with photographs, in letter of 24.10.04 (also enclosed) about construction continuing even after notice being issued in WP 8523/2003 – is a case in point. Master Plan guarantees healthcare facilities in the neighbourhood to all classes and we fail to see how misuse of planned hospital site is condonable even against fee to create for us some health insurance fund since there is no land anymore to set up facilities where we might convert this fund to our healthcare.

As far as we can make out from s.29(1) about penalties, the violater-pays proposal is also rather “soft” and from s.23 it appears (as mentioned at (6) in our letter under reference) that its proceeds cannot quite be transferred to health-insurance fund, not contemplated by the Master Plan. The proposal clearly involves a substantive modification to Delhi Master Plan (indeed to equitable benefit purpose of the Plan and land policy and, by extension, of the Act) and calls, at the least, for s.11A Public Notice. Especially in view of Public Notices to “regularize” illegal metro IT Park on riverbed (18.09.2004), non-conforming industries (released to press), etc, we seek s.11A Public Notice also for proposal to “regularize” violations by hospitals.

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma | MPISG Planner

Box: Hospitals breach contract, get away, HT, 06/11/2004

To support planned development. To oppose unplanned development. To protect our future.

MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT GROUP

A synergy platform of citizens' groups with legitimate stakes in benefits of planned development

Mr Anil Baijal, IAS, Secretary, MoUD

Sub: Demand for Public Notice for MoUD proposal for “regularizing” violations by hospitals

Sir

According to Express Newsline (‘Free treatment to make way for med insurance’, 22.12.04), the above proposal “has been approved by the government and all agencies concerned. Now it needs to be submitted to Delhi High Court”. We emphatically reiterate our contention that this proposal amounts to a substantive Master Plan modification and needs Public Notice.

While we are not opposed to changes in the Plan, but we object to them being made without adequate consideration and, in context of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s remarks about PIL (reported also on 22.12.04), we urge MoUD to issue Public Notice before seeking Court’s approval for its proposal, since to not do so would be construable as misuse of PIL in view of the following:

1. MoUD’s proposal does not answer issues raised in our enclosed letters, nor have authorities complied with Hon’ble High Court’s orders in the two PIL with reference to which these are raised.
2. MoUD’s proposal is premised on targeted BPL intervention, an approach that has failed to secure compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s order for free seats in PIL by same petitioner (Social Jurist).
3. MoUD’s proposal to “regularise” misuse of hospital sites against payment is inconsistent with Hon’ble High Court’s order of November 2004 in PIL against identical “policy” for farmhouses.
4. MoUD’s proposal to “regularise” (without Public Notice) misuse on hospital sites (mostly in residential areas) is inconsistent with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s view on Public Notice for redevelopment (not “regularisation”) in the industries’ PIL
5. Public Notice prior to moving court is required even by tactical “precedent” set by DMRC moving Hon’ble High Court for “encroachment” removal around Shastri Park (‘Complete breakdown of govt in Delhi: High Court’ Express Newsline, 23.12.04) after Public Notice of 18.09.2004 for “regularization” of its illegal IT Park continuing to be built there. (As per letter No.P1/D-77077 of 13.12.2004 from President’s Secretariat, our demand about IT Park Public Notice has been forwarded to you for appropriate action, which also we seek with urgency).

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely

sd/-

Gita Dewan Verma MPISG Planner

Encl. Letters of 22.08.2004 and 07.11.2004 (2p)

To support planned development. To oppose unplanned development. To protect our future.