Notice Sec 80 CPC Regional Plan 2021 NCR

1. 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. 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 subregional 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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