India, Maharashtra, vijay kumbhar, News, Governance, RTI, Transparency, Civic Issues, Real Estate: India
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Pune Civic Polls; system admits mistakes, terms it "human errors"

In a shocking revelation, Returning Officer ( RO) of Pune civic polls has admitted that  ballot units ( BU) were changed and mock poll was conducted one day before actual polling in absence of candidates or their representatives .In an explanation to  this writer’s earlier post “EVMs may not be but system is vulnerable to fraud” and in a reply to candidate of ward no 33, the returning officer    ( RO) has admitted many mistakes during election process , but has termed those as human errors. RO’s  explanation has raised more doubts about election process that was conducted for Pune Municipal Corporation in February 2017.




 As all the ballot units (BU)  and control units ( CU)  were sealed and kept in tight security (?) question of  any change in it does not arise at all. However on actual polling day (21st February)  when polling staff opened BUs serial no’s of BUs were different from those recorded and sealed on 2nd randomization of EVMs i.e. 15th February. In polling station no 10,12,28, 49 and 50  BU numbers were P44052, P 43551, MO22334, P143888 & P14390 respectively .But on  actual poling day those were P14992, P11947, MO23334, P 14386 & Mo 27617 respectively . If on voting day Ballot units are found faulty they can be changed after following proper procedure. Then how come and when  these ballot units were changed?

In an answer to this question of candidate RO has categorically said that BUs were changed  one day before polling day and on same day mock poll was conducted in absence of candidates or their representatives. In Marathi he has said उपरोक्त बदल हे दि २०/२/२०१७ रोजी मतदान केंद्राध्यक्ष यांनी मतदान केंद्रावर पोहचल्यानंतर रात्री उशीरा मॉकपोल बॅलेट युनिटमधील बटण मध्ये तांत्रिक अडचण उद्भवल्यामुळे झोनल अधिकारी यांचेकडे उपलब्ध करून दिलेल्या राखीव बॅलेट युनिटचा वापर  करण्यात आला आहे . वेळेअभावी या बाबतची सुचना उमेदवार किंवा उमेदवार प्रतिनिधी यांना देण्यात आली नव्हती.

That means , Such changes  were made because after arriving late night on 20/2/2017 on polling station, the technical difficulty was observed by presiding officer in a button of ballot unit and hence reserved BUs provided by zonal officer was used . Due to time constraint this was not communicated to candidate or their representatives.How come presiding officer goes to Polling station one day erlier of actual poll, changes the Bus and   conduct mock poll in absence of candidates or their representatives?

Normally as per election procedure mock poll is conducted thrice. 1st  at first Randomization of ballot and control units in presence of representatives of political parties,2nd at the time of second randomization and candidate setting in presence of candidates or their representative and 3rd  on actual polling day before polling starts. So question of mock poll on day before actual polling day doesn’t arise at all. The major question is, if such mock poll was conducted in all the civic poll constituencies or how?. If mock poll was conducted for all ballot units in Pune polls in absence of candidate then this is very serious matter.

Actually as per election procedure When the EVMs are taken out of the strong room for dispatch, they have to  inform  the date and time of opening of strong room in writing to the candidates or their representatives. In a communication to this writer  RO  has mentioned that all CU & BU were changed at the time of dispatch only so presiding officer has not mentioned the change in his diary.This is something ridiculous . Polling party is not supposed  to touch any ballot unit button or take mock poll while taking possession of election material.

 If any defect arises in the Ballot Unit (BU)or Control Unit (CU) of the EVM during poll process, it is mandatory to replace the entire set of EVM (both BU & CU) by new set of EVM (BU & CU).And presiding officer has to record the reasons of replacing CUs or BUs in his diary. In instant case presiding officer has not recorded any reason for changing BUs in his diary.

There are some other serious issues that RO has termed them as human error. In  ward no 33 in around 21 polling stations  sequence of BU was changed. on 15th February  as per procedure EVMs were checked randomized , allotted polling station  wise, sequence wise  and sealed in presence of candidate or their representatives. Sequence of candidates was also set on the same day .Copies of serial no of polling station  wise ballot units (Bu) , Control unit and sequence of candidates set were given to candidate.

As per rules  Ballot Unit should be connected to control unit according sequence allotted to them only. Changing that sequence amounts to exchange of votes to another candidates. On upper right side of ballot unit there is slide switch that indicates sequence No of ballot unit . Polling staff wrote the sequence as they saw it on BU. Then how come sequence of ballot unit was changed and who changed it ?.This amounted to interchange of BUs. This has happen in 21 polling stations . This Number is very high. RO says this was human errors. If his version has to be admitted then Election commission has to admit that the staff on election duty was poorly trained or under educated.

In the upgraded model of the voting machines in case of change in sequence of ballot unit  linking error appears on the display panel of the control unit. The linking error can  be set right by interlinking the Ballot Units in the proper sequential order. Now election commission has to clarify whether EVM used in pune civic polls were of upgraded version or not and whether staff on election duty was poorly trained or under educated.


Election commission of India has clarified that in case of elections to Municipal bodies or Rural bodies like Panchayat Elections, the EVMs used do not belong to the Election Commission of India. Above local bodies elections come under the jurisdiction of State Election Commission/s (SECs), which procure their own machines and have their own handling system. ECI is not responsible for functioning of EVMs used by SECs in above elections. In my entire posts on election I have not blamed the EVMs but what about the system that handle the EVMs. Is that different in case of election commission of India?

Related Stories



Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199

                   http://surajya.org/
Email     – kvijay14@gmail.com
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14

Thursday, March 9, 2017

VIJAYKUMBHAR.COM a Project Specific & Private Real Estate Discussion Forum for Affected People

Our Mission is to educate and motivate flat, plot, land buyers to take adequate precaution before and after the investment in real estate projects. Normally people do not dare and unite to ask builders uncomfortable questions or problems they face. VIJAYKUMBHAR.COM is the place where people without disclosing their identity can discuss on the projects they have invested in. Unless affected people unite they are not able to take proper step in case of any problems. This forum will be for discussion as well as for guidance from other  members and team of vijaykumbhar.com. Members of particular forum will decide on their own to take  or not any action regarding that specific project if needed.This is a subscription based forum . 


Time and again, government brings in restrictions and imposes prohibitions to protect buyers of property, be it land, plot, apartments or bungalows. Despite that, scams and scandals keep surfacing on a regular basis. Builders and project proponents of plotting schemes, find loopholes in laws and regulations, play different tricks, play with words, and give deceptive promises and so on. They run scams like selling proposed N-A Plots, Villa plots, farmhouses, affordable housing, promising to double your money by investing in plotting or plantation schemes  etc. They never fulfill promises they give to flat buyers. They appoint smart staff and agents. Most of the time, staff and agents get paid more than what they deserve and hence they don’t hesitate to deceive own relatives or acquaintances.

It is not the case that government official don’t understand or are not aware of such cases but they are hand in glove with promoters of such schemes and land mafias and so they turn a blind eye to such crimes. For buyers or small investors, it is difficult to know what is right and what is wrong. They do not understand how to move forward if there is problem with a project they have invested money in or if they have bought a flat. So what is the remedy?

One should always take ample care before investing in any scheme. Discuss it before & after investing in it. But the basic problem is buyers or small investors of such schemes are always scared and scattered. They do not dare to ask anything to builders or promoters of such schemes.

To discuss such matters we introduce VIJAYKUMBHAR.COM, a project specific private discussion forum. In this forum, members are supposed to share the information and discuss regarding that specific real estate project only. That will help, proposed or existing buyers to find out the truth, factual problems of specific real estate projects and to decide future course of action, if any.

We assure complete secrecy of member’s identity and also assure that we will not allow any building or plotting project to advertise on VIJAYKUMBHAR.COM unless we are satisfied with the credentials of that particular project.


To enable  team of VIJAYKUMBHAR.COM to guide forum, initially we will start forums on projects in Pune and Mumbai revenue area only. That means these forums will be for existing and proposed  residential, plotting or any other real estate  projects in  Pune , Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Thane , Palghar, Satara , Sangli, Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Raigad, Sindhudurg and Sholapur districts only


Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199

                   http://surajya.org/
Email     – kvijay14@gmail.com

Friday, February 10, 2017

Temple Rose Real Estate Scam is an Organised Crime...

Temple rose real estate scam is organised crime also. There is team of 15 to 20 persons who  are involved in this entire scam. You will find their names almost  in every temple rose project as a genuine buyer . But at the same time they are involved in land deals for same or other projects with temple rose directors in all over Maharashtra. They pretend themselves as genuine plot buyers to deceive other genuine investors  only.


Image Courtsey timesofindia

And that may be the reason when   temple rose real estate scam was exposed so many plot  buyers called this writer but very few turned up for the meeting held there after for any further action. This happened because genuine plot buyers are scared & scattered and   others  were just stooges of the company itself. Unless plot buyer get united, there is hardly any possibility of getting their money back or plot.


Fear of losing money already invested may be another reason that  duped  investors  don’t come forward to take action on such scammers.  One person wrote this writer after  he  read  post on Temple Rose city scam. He had  bought a plot in their Rose City PH-1, Pingori Project. He had already paid them EMIs for around 2 years and stopped paying since last 1.5yrs.When he visited their office in Pune they again convinced him but asked him to pay the remaining money after they get the NA. He eventually did nothing for 1.5 year. Now how can the plot that was not in possession of Temple Rose Real Estate (TRRE) and the plot Temple Rose Live Stock(TRLS)  has already sold can be NA? .

Another example is of rose city Phase VII .Actually Rose city phase I to VI were related to survey no 810 and phase VII was related to survey no 827.As per temple rose website there are still some plots available for sale. However they have already sold all that land . They had done same thing in case of rose city other phases.

Temple Rose have broke almost all laws , rules and regulation regarding land deals and income tax also. Off course they have done all these crimes hand with gloves of public authorities in Maharashtra. Needless to say they why such authorities would have done so. Under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, no person can purchase agricultural land in Maharashtra if he is not a farmer. As well there is ceiling on holding agriculture land by a genuine farmer and ban on dividing agriculture lands. Almost in all the land deals TRRE has executed with registration department there nothing mentioned how money for particular deed was paid or received?

Agreements with  plot purchasers are not done properly also .Actually documents for real estate have to be registered at the department of registration. Notarised sale deeds doesn’t bear any value. However notarization was also not done properly. When asked everybody denied that  notarization was done before the notary. Attesting affidavits in the absence of its executants or deponents and authenticating instruments without verifying the identity of persons coming for attestation and the fact of execution is illegal. And stamp paper that documents are notarized on has  to in the name of either of the parties to the Deed , that has also been not followed by Temple Rose.

So called Transparency is another funny part of Temple rose real estate scam. They have displayed names of the plot holder on their website. There is  “ view detail” option to check details of that certain plot. But to view that option you need to have application number. However none of the lot holder this writer came across had such application number.


In the nutshell everybody involved in  the activities of Temple Rose Real Estate Scam has played a significant role in its crime and hence it falls in the category of organised crime . Criminal activities that are planned and controlled by powerful groups and carried out on a large scale Fall in that category.

Related Stories

Temple Rose Plotting Scam Exposed



Number of fools who want to get cheated is multi million times more than the actual cheaters in Ponzi Investment


Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Hurdles in appointment of Real Estate Regulatory Authority in Maharashtra Removed

Any time after 1st May 2016 the government of Maharashtra may establish Real Restate Regulatory Authority ( RERA )or delegate its power to somebody. On account of present controversy over Maple Groups misleading advertisements under Pradhanmantri awas Yojana ( PMAY) , FIR’s and further drama, it was alleged that presence of RERA would have made significant difference and timely intervention of RERA would have saved several peoples’ hard earned money. However, now with notification dated 27th April 2016 hurdles in appointment of RERA or delegating it’s powers to somebody have been removed .


Photo courtsey www.thehindubusinessline.com


The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MHUPA) of government of India has brought in to force some provisions of Real Estate ( Regulatortion nad Development )  Act 2016
( REA )   as well it has repealed The Maharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Act, 2012. The MHUPA has announced this with a notification dated 27 April 2016.With this notification MHUPA has brought some sections of the Real Estate Regulatory Act 2016   into force.


Section 81 read with Section 82 ( C ) Real Estate Regulatory Act empowers appropriate Government to delegate powers of RERA  to any authority  if circumstances exist which render it necessary in the public interest so to do. The MHUPA has brought in to force section 81 to 92 including following provisions of REA  from 1 may 2016.

Section 2 – Definitions, This section deals with the all the terms used in real estate sector

Section 20 to 39 – These sections deal with the Establishment and incorporation of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Composition of Authority. Qualifications of Chairperson and Members of Authority. Term of office of Chairperson and Members. Salary and allowances payable to Chairperson and Members. Administrative powers of Chairperson. Removal of Chairperson and Members from office in certain circumstances. Restrictions on Chairperson or Members on employment after cessation of office

Section 41 to 58 – These sections deal with the Establishment of Central Advisory Council. Functions of Central Advisory Council. Establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Section 71 to 78 – These sections deal with Power to adjudicate. Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer.

Related Stories

CREDAI should clarify on 1 BHK flat for rupees 5 lakh



Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org              

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest may adversely affect Pune’s future as a Smart City.

Critics believe that smart city is just a buzz-phrase that has outlived its usefulness it is the wrong idea pitched in the wrong way to the wrong people. Some also believe that, In the end, they will destroy democracy. And that’s what exactly happening in Pune. Pune has participated in smart city challenge. Lack of Transparency, Confidentiality, one sided agreements, Conflict of Interests and mockery of democracy during the process of smart city challenge stage may adversely affect Pune’s future as a Smart City.


Courtsey - rhg.thehuffingtonriposte.com
There are several irregularities in the process of selection of Consultant & in the preparation of the proposal for participation of Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) in the Smart Cities Challenge. Serious violations of the Model Request for Proposal (RFP) and the irregular concessions granted to Mckinsey against public interest . An urgent investigation in the entire process of selection of Mckinsey as the Consultant to Pune Municipal Corporation and of the preparation of the proposal for assisting Pune City to participate in the Smart Cities challenge is very necessary

There is complete Lack of Transparency in entire process. The Agreement signed between PMC & Mckinsey has been uploaded belatedly on the PMC website. PMC has resorted to a limited transparency policy by not fully uploading documents pertaining to the award of the contract to Mckinsey. Appendix B – Key experts and Appendix C – Breakdown of contract price, which are integral part of the Agreement have not been uploaded. The letters of invitation to the consultants along with the Annexure are not uploaded on the PMC website. Details of the selection process are completely absent. These documents are critical to the award of the contract on which the RFP for the Smart City is based.

There are several anomalies in the Agreement signed by the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (“PMC”) with M/s Mckinsey & Company (“Mckinsey”) and the format does not adhere to the model Request for Proposal (“RFP” for short) for the selection of consultants specified by the Government of India. Thus, the basic structure has been faulted, which will adversely affect Pune’s future as a Smart City.

Several clauses/sub clauses have been deleted, modified or supplemented against public interest. These are substantial modifications and variations. And in terms of Clause 16.2 prior written consent of the Bank is required, which the Commissioner has failed to obtain and/or display on the website. Reproduced here briefly are some of the major modifications and variations carried out against public interest.

The Commissioner has wholly deleted Clauses 17.8 (Measures to be taken), 41.2.1 (Advance Payment Bank Guarantee by Mckinsey) and 42.1 (Interest on Delayed Payments) of the Model RFP from the Agreement signed with Mckinsey (“the Agreement”). The Commissioner has also modified Clause 41.2.2, which favours the Consultant by specifying payment “at the earliest” rather than following the Model RFP of payment “within 60 days.” By deleting Clause 42.1, the Commissioner has only rationalised PMC’s inefficiency and given a leeway to the Consultant to put forth the excuse of delayed payment for any slippage in its work. These modifications clearly appear to be a quid pro quo in lieu of granting special concessions.

Clause 21.1 pertains to ‘Conflict of Interest’, which occurs in a situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person or organisation because of the possibility of a clash between the person's or the organisation’s self-interest and public interest. The three accepted categories are ‘actual conflict of interest’, ‘potential conflict of interest’ and ‘perceived conflict of interest’.

Mckinsey has replaced the Model RFP Clause 21.1 (Conflict of Interest) with an entirely different version, which has equated “conflict of interest” to “confidentiality of information”. Clause 22 (Confidentiality of information) has also been cleverly re-worded so that the onus entirely devolves on the PMC.
courtsey - jantoo.com

Clause 21.1 (Conflict of Interest) in the Agreement is badly drafted, grammatically incorrect and convoluted. Our suspicions are further reinforced because Clause 21.1.4 (Prohibition of Conflicting Activities) does not exist in the Agreement.

For ease of understanding reproduced below are Clauses 21.1 in the model RFP and the one inserted by Mckinsey as well as Clause 21.1.4 (Prohibition of Conflicting Activities) deleted wholly from the Agreement. One can draw one’s own conclusions.

Clause 21.1 in Model RFP: “The Consultant shall hold the Client’s interests paramount, without any consideration for future work, and strictly avoid conflict with other assignments or their own corporate interests.”

Clause 21.1 in the Agreement signed by the Commissioner: “lt is Consultant's long-standing policy to serve competing clients and clients with potentially conflicting interests as well as counter-parties in merger, acquisition and alliance opportunities, and to do so without compromising Consultant's professional responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of client information consistent with such practice and consultant's confidentiality obligations to its other clients, consultant is not able to advise or consult with the Company about Consultant's serving the Company’s competitors or other parties.”

courtsey - ibfanafrica.org.sz 
Deleted Clause 21.1.4: “The Consultant shall not engage, and shall cause its Experts as well as its Sub-consultants not to engage, either directly or indirectly, in any business or professional activities that would conflict with the activities assigned to them under this Contract”.

The Agreement with the PMC has two additional clauses 22.2 and 22.3 regarding “Confidentiality” under the head “Obligations of the Consultant”. These sub clauses are contradictory because as per Sub Clause 22.2 any information that is legally required to be disclosed is not ‘confidential’ while Sub Clause 22.3 requires prior approval of the Consultant for disclosing “… any materials or information that Consultant furnishes to the Client, including the deliverables, to any third parties…”. The entire selection process of the Consultant and the process for preparation of the proposal for assisting Pune City to participate in the Smart Cities challenge are legally required to be transparent and in public domain. Further, by no stretch of imagination can obtaining “prior approval of the Consultant” be termed as “Obligations of the Consultant”. The entire process of selection and preparation of the proposal was kept under a veil of secrecy for reasons, which need not be recorded here.

By deleting Clause 25.2 (Accounting, Inspection & Auditing) PMC and Mckinsey have deprived the Bank of its right to inspect accounts and records of Mckinsey and its Sub consultants. The Bank means “International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“IBRD-World Bank”) or the International Development Association (“IDA”). We are reproducing below the deleted Clause 25.2 of the Model RFP in full to show the length to which the Agreement has been modified in ‘accommodating” certain interests.

courtsey -www.jantoo.com

Clause 25.2 (Accounting, Inspection & Auditing): “The Consultant shall permit and shall cause its Sub consultants to permit, the Bank and/or persons appointed by the Bank to inspect the Site and/or all accounts and records relating to the performance of the Contract and the submission of the Proposal to provide the Services, and to have such accounts and records audited by auditors appointed by the Bank if requested by the Bank. The Consultant’s attention is drawn to Clause 10 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) which provides, inter alia, that acts intended to materially impede the exercise of the Bank’s inspection and audit rights provided for under this Clause GCC 

25.2 constitute a prohibited practice subject to contract termination (as well as to a determination of ineligibility under the Bank’s prevailing sanctions procedures.)”

In spite of clear instructions to select the Consultant on Least Cost Selection (LCS) basis, the contract given by the Commissioner to Mckinsey is on the basis of Quality and Cost Based Selection (“QCBS”). This has resulted in PMC paying exorbitant cost for the Consultancy compared to other cities.Pune is the only city paying 2.5 crores to the consultant; all other cities participating in smart city mission have done this work in 40 lakh rupees only.

Related Stories 


Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org              

Monday, December 8, 2014

what is the future of the projects that have violated environment norms ?

Since my last post, many readers called me to ask about future of the projects where they have bought the flats. What are the consequences of not having environment clearance?. Some of them said builder has assured them of obtaining Environment clearance (EC) within a month or two, some said builder is going to apply afresh for EC, some builders even went on to say "we don’t need EC, everything is managed".


Interestingly none of flat purchasers dared to ask builder why did he lie? Why they started construction and sold the flats prior to EC, When prior EC was necessary?, Why State Environment Assessment Authority ( SEAC ) recommended rejection of EC or action against them?. Why criminal cases have been filed against them? What will happen to my flat or money if the EC is completely rejected?


The futures of such projects depend entirely on type of violation. The cases where there are chances of correction and compliance of environment norms those may considered for EC after necessary legal action on project proponent. For this to happen project proponent has to apply afresh for EC. But for the projects where irregularities or violations are beyond repairable conditions, future such projects are in dark.

For example if the builder has constructed more than allowed height limits of environment norms then after correction i.e after demolishing the illegal part of project and after facing legal action it may get EC. But this is not as easy as it looks. So many builders have already sold the illegal part of the project hence the buyers of such part may land in trouble.

In so many projects irregularities committed by project proponent are beyond corrective measures and provisions of law cannot be disregarded and ignored merely because what was done, was being done or on the grounds of fate accompli.

The flat purchasers who have been cheated by the builders may also try one other option i.e. if he/she is sure that environment norms for which notice have been sent are beyond corrective measures or scope of making project legal is impossible. Then they should file police complaint; try consumer court or criminal cases against builders.

One thing is clear that there is nexus between builders, politicians, bureaucrats,banks behind such illegalities. But I don’t understand why the property buyers don’t consult some expert in this field before spending their hard earned money.

So for future of the projects that have been rejected EC or to whom notices of violation of environment norms have been sent, one has to look at the nature of the violations. Reproduced below is the list of the projects to which EC has been rejected and reasons of such rejection. For other projects to  whom  notices have been sent for violation of EC norms one has to ask for the copy of the notice and see whether there are chances of correction or not.

M/s. Eiffel Developers and Realtors Ltd ‘Eiffel City’ at Chakan, Taluka-Khed, Dist.-Pune,

The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made and documents submitted by
the proponent. The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. All issues related to environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology and biodiversity and social aspects were discussed.

During the appraisal, the PP admitted that 80% of the construction work has already been
completed inspite of knowing the fact that it is mandatory to obtain prior EC for construction
project involving 20000 m2 build up area or more. The PP also admitted that the revised plan was approved in 2010 and most of the construction work was carried out during 2011. The Committee noted that the PP / Consultant had not submitted the above said fact in the documents submitted, including Form-I, but revealed it only during the presentation. Environment Department may look into matter for the aforesaid violation and take necessary action for the misrepresentation of the data and violation.
.
It was also noted that the PP has not obtained the consent for water supply from a
competent authority and no sewerage facility is available catering to the project. The right of way to the plot is 12 m, whereas the height of the building is 36 m, which does not comply with the MoEF OM dated 7th Feb, 2012. The ground coverage is very high (63%) As most of the prerequisites are not met, SEAC decided to recommend rejection of the proposal for prior
Environmental Clearance

M/s. Karia Realty “Konark Meadows” at Gat No. – 1185/A, Plot No. – 3, Near Wagheshwar Temple, Behind Moze College, Wagholi, Pune

The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made and documents submitted by
the proponent. All issues related to environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology and
biodiversity and social aspects were discussed.

PP stated that the construction work has already been initiated and Buildings A, B C and D
have been built. PP stated that he has handed over the amenity space to the Collector in lieu of which additional FSI is claimed and the total built up area now exceeds 20,000 m2 and hence applied for EC.
The Committee noted that the current approach road is 5 m wide and there is a proposed
DP road of 18 m width. The maximum height of the building is 37.25 m, therefore, the project cannot be considered in light of MoEF OM dated 7.02.2012, until the DP road of 18 m width is constructed. The PP has not obtained the consents for water supply and drainage facility from competent authorities. In view of the nonavailability of the major prerequisites, SEAC decided to recommend rejection of the proposal for Environmental Clearance

M/s Rohinton Mehta Constructions. "Solacia" located at Gat No. 2188A (old)/Gat No. 1185A (New), Plot No. 1,4,5,6,7A,7B,8 and 9A, Behind Rambhau Moze Engineering College, BAIF Road, Pune – 40

As per decision in the 54th meeting of SEAC, Sub Committee visited the site on 20th
August, 2012. Observations made during the site visit were deliberated. It is noted that the Phase I of the project is completed and occupied partly.
In Phase II, 4 buildings have been completed and occupied. These buildings were
constructed by another developer from whom it has taken over by the present proponent and
expansion work planned on a larger plot subsequently acquired. Two buildings are in progress, out of which one is nearly completed and one is at stilt level. For Phase III, one building is nearly completed and other building is not yet completed. This is a violation of EIA Notificaiton, 2006.

The Environment Department may look into the violation and take appropriate action for the
violation. It is noted that-
1. 15m wide DP road serving as access to the project is constructed jointly with all near by
developers. As per MoEF OM dated 7th Feb, 2012, the maximum height of the building
should not exceed 15m, considering the width of access road. However, about 36m tall
buildings have been constructed.

2. The entire plot area in the campus is almost paved and hardly any space is left for
plantation.

3. Basement constructed below Phase-I row houses has inadequate natural lighting and
ventilation and access/ exist ramps.

4. No RWH work is done.

5. No hydrants or refuge areas were seen and measures provided for fire protection are not
clear.

6. The water supply and drainage scheme is still at a very preliminary stage and may not
materialise in the near future. Presently water is being supplied through bore wells or
tankers.

7. The treated effluent from STP has no sustainable method of disposal. PP was not able to
provide satisfactory details regarding treated STP waste water disposal.

8. No reliable arrangement exists for solid waste disposal

9. Provision of amenities were not seen

Considering the existing violations and inadequate compliances, this expansion project, as
submitted cannot be recommended for EC and hence SEAC decided to reject the proposal.

M/s.Smart Value Homes Limited S. No. 279…. 344 of village Kathivali,
Tal. Shahapur, Dist. Thane

The project proponent presented the proposal before the committee and the case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. It was observed that PP has not yet complied with the following conditions of EC letter for the Phase 1 issued on 21st October, 2011:
(i) There shall be no discharge of surplus treated effluent to any nala, stream or any other water body outside the project. The surplus effluent (after meeting the requirement for flushing etc.) should be used for taking up gardening and horticultural developments on the balance area of about 10 hectares.
(ii) PP shall lay a pipeline for carrying the surplus water to appropriate site as discussed in SEAC & SEIAA Meetings.

PP now proposed that he would construct a pond of an area 6000 cmd to store and periodically dispose of 397 cmd of surplus treated water during wet seasons. PP also proposed that excess treated water to be utilized for nearby submerged paddy fields and nursery. Considering the total population of around 12,000 populations in the proposed township the proposed external arrangements are not sustainable.
Decision:
SEAC decided to recommend the proposal of Phase II for rejection of Environmental Clearance.

 M/s Parmar Indus Associates “Vista Luxuria” at S No. 162, Majri, Pune

 The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. All issues related to environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology, biodiversity and social aspects were discussed.

PP informed that construction was initiated at the site with a total BUA of 14245.2 sq.m and
completed with the approval of local authority. It is noted that three buildings with height of 30 m with a right of way of 9 m (as per MoEF OM dated 7th February 2012, the maximum height allowed is 15m) has been completed and foundation work of other proposed buildings is also almost completed. It appears to be a violation of EIA Notification, 2006. Environment
Department may look into the matter and take an appropriate action.

SEAC noted that-

1. The current right of way is 9m. As per MoEF OM dated 7th February 2012, the maximum
height allowed is 15m but the proposed maximum height of the building is 36m.

2. Consent for water and drainage from competent authority are not yet obtained.Considering this, SEAC is constrained to recommend the rejection of prior environment
clearance to the proposal.

M/s. Sia Developers “Vermont” residential Project Gat No. 1204 (2138), 1205 (2139), 1206 (2140), 1208 (2194), opp wagheshware Temple, BAIF road, college, Wagholi, tal Haveli, Dist Pune

The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. All issues related to environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology, biodiversity and social aspects were discussed.

PP informed that construction was initiated at the site as per NA approval with FSI 12797 sq.m and total BUA 19,900 sq.m including Non-FSI area. This is a violation of EIA Notification, 2006. Environment Department may look into the matter and take an appropriate action.

SEAC noted that-
1. The current right of way is 12m. As per MoEF OM dated 7th February 2012, the maximum
height allowed is 15m but the proposed (and also the existing building) maximum height
is 39m.

2. Proposed FSI 0.9 is not yet approved.

3. Consent for water and drainage from competent authority are not yet obtained. Considering this, SEAC is constrained to recommend the rejection of prior environmental clearance to the proposal.


 M/s. Tricon Builders, Residential Building on plot bearing Sr. No. 19/1 to 4 & 19/5/1 & 19/5/2, at post Pisoli, Tal Haveli, Dist. Pune

The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. All issues related to environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology, biodiversity and social aspects were discussed. PP informed that construction was initiated at the site as per NA approval with a total BUA 19,878 sq.m including Non-FSI area. This is a violation of EIA Notification, 2006.

Environment Department may look into the violation and take appropriate action.
SEAC noted that-

1. The current right of way is 9m. As per MoEF OM dated 7th February 201, the maximum
height allowed is 15m but the proposed maximum height of the building (including the
completed ones) is 30m.

2. Proposed FSI of 0.9 is not yet approved.

3. Consent for water and drainage from competent authority has not yet been obtained.
Considering this, SEAC is constrained to recommend the rejection of prior environmental
clearance to the proposal

 M/s. Kumar Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.  “PALMCREST” (Residential Project) at Village – Pisoli, Taluka – Haveli, Pune

The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. The
project is located at Pisoli Village, Taluka – Haveli, Pune and situation regarding water supply and drainage are similar as per Item No. 23. ( Advika Constructions)

The PP has started the construction. On this PP informed that he was plan Phase I having
BUA less than 20,000 sq. m. Environment Department may look into the said matter and take
necessary action.

The proposed project is an expansion of existing project which is not reflected in form I.
It is noted that existing approach road is 9 m wide and position regarding widening of road is not clear. Hence, the PP need to restrict the height as per MoEF OM dated 7th Feb, 2012.
On this observation, Committee decided to recommend the project as proposed for
Rejection

M/s. Advika Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Advika - Residential Project at Pisoli, Tal. – Haveli , Dist. Pune 
The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. It is noted
that the project proponent has nearly completed the construction work of 2 buildings without
obtaining the prior environmental clearance. Environment Department may look into the said
violation and take necessary action.

It is noted that existing approach road is 9 m wide and availability of 15m wide access road in future is not clear. Hence, the PP need to restrict the height as per MoEF OM dated 7th Feb, 2012.

Position regarding water supply and drainage is not clear and submitted water balance was
incorrect. There is also discrepancy in the submitted figures i.e. number of buildings, ground
coverage area, etc. The PP has also not furnished the data of subsoil condition for the preparation of RWH scheme.

On this observation, Committee decided to recommend the project as proposed for rejection.

Related Stories


Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News &  Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist

Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org 


Monday, March 31, 2014

Is Election Commission Of India really unbiased ?

Many Public authorities in India have adopted online grievance redressal mechanism. Election Commission of India(ECI) is also amongst them. ECI is responsible for administering all the electoral processes in India. It supposed that under the supervision of the commission, free and fair elections are held. However when it comes to redressal of complaints or grievance, I doubt whether ECI is really unbiased or how? .There is reason why I doubt election commissions procedure.

On 4th march 2014 I lodged online complaint with election commission of India. Promptly they sent me acknowledgement. Redressal time given to  my complaint was 10 days. However even after 25 days ECI has not taken any decision on my complaint. If there is no substance in complaint they should have disposed it off with reasons. What is point in keeping the complaint hanging? Why 10 days response time was given to me and what happened to it? I had lodged complaint against Pune Divisional commissioner Prabhakar Deshmukh. He has very strongpolitical backing and can easily manipulate the election procedure.