1

DO No. Disaster/2014/2 Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi

1102/Tower 1, The UniworldGarden

Sec 47, Gurgaon-122018

Mob: 9818768349

13th January 2014

To,

Sh. Manmohan Singh

The Prime Minister of India

Government of India, South Block, New Delhi-110011

ACTION U/S 28/39 OF NCRPB ACT 1985 etc &

NOTICE U/S 80 CPC

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

1. There is an urgent fresh development w.r.t. my DO No.

Disaster/2014/1 of 12th

January 2014.

2. The NCRPB is not only failing to carry out proper planning

in the National Capital Region in accord with the mandate of

Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Principle of Carrying

Capacity and Sustainable Development; it is now reportedly

planning to abdicate its mandated primary powers under

sub-sections (a) to (f) of Sec 8 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 which

are not amenable to delegation as even the primary functions

under sub-sections (a) to (e) of Sec 7 are not at all amenable to

delegation as is apparent from the wording of sub-section (g)

of Sec 8, “(g) entrust to the Committee such other functions

as it may consider necessary to carry out the provisions of this

Act.” See Article, Faster nod for NCR projects in Haryana

TOI dt 13.01.2014:

"The Centre seems to be courting controversy by

following different standards in approving sub-regional

2

plans....UP sub-regional plan was cleared by the apex

panel of NCR Planning Board (NCRPB) headed by

urban development minister Kamal Nath where CMs of

the four constituent states are members.... delegation of

the apex panel's powers to the empowered committee...

headed by Union urban development secretary Sudhir

Krishna....proposal to delegate the powers came from

Krishna at the last empowered committee meeting on

December 30. Though chief secretaries of all member

states - Delhi, Haryana, UP and Rajasthan - are

members of this committee, none of them were present.

They were represented by junior officials. Sources said

none objected to the proposal....It's learnt while Haryana

CM told the NCRPB panel in July last year that the sub-

regional plan would be submitted in a month, it came to

NCRPB only a few weeks back."

3. Kindly also refer to the attached documents, (1) 2013.11.02

Strategic green review of NCR Regional Plan stressed The

Hindu, (2) 2013.11.19 NCRPB grapples with objections to

revision of Regional Plan 2021 The Hindu, (3) 2014.01.13

Faster nod for NCR projects in Haryana TOI and also refer to

17 documents attached to my DO sent yesterday.

4. There appears to be a Machiavellian scheme of the powers

that be to derail the very noble Aims and Objects of the

NCRPB Act, 1985, “in the public interest to provide for the

3

constitution of a Planning Board for the preparation of a

plan for the development of the National Capital Region

and for co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation

of such plan and for evolving harmonized policies for the

control of land-uses and development of infrastructure in

the National Capital Region so as to avoid any haphazard

development thereof” which is also explained in paragraphs

below.

5. That a revealing news item, NCRPB grapples with

objections to revision of Regional Plan 2021, The Hindu,

19.11.2013 reported:

"Says Prof AK Maitra, former director of the School of

Planning and Architecture, who headed the study group

on environment “I think this is a sure way to destroy

the Aravallis which is not only a pristine natural

resource and natural barrier between arid Rajasthan and

Delhi but an important ground water recharge zone. We

were never consulted on these relaxations because our

study group was abandoned midway after NCRPB

stopped our meetings.”

6. That an earlier damning news item (which has evoked no

rebuttal as per DOP&T/parliamentary norms), Strategic green

review of NCR Regional Plan stressed, The Hindu,

02.11.2013 reported:

4

“The seminar had presentations from Asesh Maitra and

Meenaksi Dhote from the School of Planning and

Architecture (SPA); Manu Bhatnagar of INTACH;

Manoj Misra from PEACE and environmental analyst

Chetan Agarwal. Several retired planners, NGOs and

citizen groups also attended the meeting. They included

members of Centre for Science and Environment,

Foundation for Ecological Security, Natural

Heritage First and the Indian Institute for Public

Administration.

The lack of environmental oversight in the regional

planning process was identified as a key regulatory

gap at the meeting. While individual projects require

environmental clearance, there is currently no practice

of review under the Environment Protection Act of

Master Plans and the NCR Regional Plan — which

make much more important decisions about areas to

conserve and thus impact the environmental

sustainability of the towns and the NCR, the

participants argued. It was accordingly recommended

that a SEA should be undertaken for the revised draft

Regional Plan-2021 and the findings be fed into the

planning process.

The NCR Regional Plan acts as a model for Master

Plans of all other regions across the country and

5

therefore has immense significance. It is also an

important instrument for balancing development and

conservation and maintaining the carrying capacity of

the NCR and protecting the environmentally sensitive

areas which are strategic environmental assets on

which rests the drinking water security of the region.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests, therefore,

must get representation on the NCRPB,” said Prof.

Mitra, the former director of SPA.

xxxxxx

The participants asserted that many important

environmental provisions and safeguards in the current

Regional Plan 2021 were not implemented or achieved,

including (i) promulgation of the Natural Conservation

Zones with a 0.5 per cent restriction on construction,

and (ii) land suitability analysis, etc.

The revised draft Regional Plan- 2021, which also

highlighted the problem of unplanned growth, has

significantly diluted key environmental safeguards

for the environmentally sensitive areas such as the

Aravallis and the Yamuna and other riverbeds

instead of plugging the gaps in the implementation.

The meeting concluded that these and other safeguards

should be retained in the Regional Plan 2021 and

6

implemented with full backing of the NCRPB. If at all

any revision is required, they should aim at updating

the plan with the implications from new statutes,

international commitments in the field of climate

change, environmental policy, disaster management,

biodiversity, etc.

It was felt that if these changes were approved, it would

lead to a fait accompli situation with disastrous

outcomes for the drinking water security of the

National Capital Region towns and cities, as well as

the biodiversity and air quality.”

7. It has been held by the Apex Court that environmental

concerns must be considered by a regulator before any

project having environmental sensitivity is approved. It is

therefore requested that Regional Plan 2021 be held in

abeyance till such time these concerns are properly

addressed by a regulator duly constituted under Sec 3 of

the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Kindly also

consider this DO letter as a notice under Section 80 CPC.

Regards

Place: Gurgaon

Date: 13th

January 2014

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi

1102/Tower 1 The UniworldGarden

Sec 47, Gurgaon-122018

Mob: 9818768349

7

Copy to:-

1. Dr V Rajagopalan, I.A.S.,

The Secretary,

Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110003

vrg.iyer@nic.in

2. Dr. Sudhir Krishna, I.A.S.,

The Secretary

Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India

Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road

New Delhi 110008

secyurban@nic.in

3. Ms Naini Jayaseelan, I.A.S.,

The Member Secretary,

National Capital Region Planning Board

Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India

Core-IV B, First Floor, India Habitat Centre,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003

ncrpb-ms@nic.in

4. Sh SC Choudhary, I.A.S.,

The Chief Secretary,

Govt of Haryana, Haryana Secretariat,

Chandigarh 160001

cs@hry.nic.in