[RWA-Mascot:1141] Re: [Mascot RWA Executive Body-685] Re: [CROMA Executive Body] Appeal for your support-Dumping Ground Issue-Filing of Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court

Builder's case [and intention] is already different. Moreover they have not a new case in supreme court. Rather they are challenging the 'lost case' in high court; for which 99% chance is that 'Builders will loose again' [because of their ill-intention]. If you  read high court verdict carefully, you will find that there were some points related to health hazard too from builders in the argument. But, somehow it was not given weight-age [may be because the lawyer did not argue well, or the overall 'intention' of the case was 'land-grabbing']

My main point is that 'Why we are so eager to join builder's lobby?'  If you could reply below concerns point-wise, it would be great.

1 - What is the problem in going NGT, just to get their interim order on DG. Since GNN is already in the process of building the DG [Walls are  erected, some work is already done], this is absolutely OK to go NGT at this moment.

2 - Why not we can go in high court for an interim stay on DG. Technically, our case is altogether different than what builder fought, it would be treated as new issue 'on the same land'.

Have we discussed about the above option with lawyers. Is there any solid reason given for not opting any of the above?

I don't question lawyer's advise, but many of them cares for their 'pocket' more... They simply don't care on what will happen, if one wrong move leads to defeat.. So, its better that we be fully informed, that what are our best options!

-GD

On Saturday, July 7, 2012 11:14:57 PM UTC+5:30, pathak sujoy wrote:

Hi GD,

 

Your concerns are valid, Let me brief you about this. As we all know that builders already lost the case in High Court which they have fought for Land usage and the builder challenge the High Court's decisions in Supreme Court, if they loose that case in Supreme Court as well and if DG is allowed to start, then even we put up the case in High Court, Supreme Court's decision will stay on top and at that time we will not be in the position to do anything out of all efforts.

 

CROMA has consulted many lawyers and the best option find to move forward in this direction, they have suggested to be aparty on the same case where we are filing the case on environmental background, Health background and various acceptable criteria for forming DG which are not present in this case; these all will strengthen the case. This will going to make this case strong.

 

Moreover various RWA's and members from various societies in CR attached as party for this case. So we are trying the best possible way to move forward after all discussion with various SC lawyers. I think this will clarify some doubt from your mind. Now we need everyone's support to move this forward.

 

Hoping to get everyone's support for this. Let me know if you have any more question on this.

 

Thanks & Regards,

Sujoy

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:44 AM, GD  wrote:

I feel that I should elaborate my concern in historic sense, as I am very much concern about our move to be right only. We simply can't afford to fail. So, we must take decisions carefully.

As per my understanding:

1 - Builder fought a case against GNN/GDA, whose main focus was to 'grab GNN land i.e. dumping ground land'.

2 - As expected, builders lost the case; as it was a clear nexus of GDA-Builder to grab GNN land.

3 - Builder never fought the DG case as 'issue to environment' and health hazard of residents.

4. Then they decided to challenge the case in Supreme Court, which I don't see any merit. Their intention is not removing DG for health hazard; but to stop it coming till the time their sell out everything [Specially Ansal projects]. So, it just a time pass. They are going to loose again.

5. We had decided in our' last year/early this year' meetings that we will never club our case with Builder's case in supreme court.

6. If needed, we will file a fresh case in High court purely on the basis of 'Bye-Laws of Dumping Ground' and 'Health hazard to a dense population'.

7. I believe that we can file case in high court at any time, unless GDA/GNN back out from building DG completely. We can simply take a pre-emptive decision that GNN/GDA 'decision' to build the dumping ground itself is invalid. We may not need to actually wait for DG to take off for this. We can simply challenge their plan.

8. Going to High court was also important, as we will still have option open to go into Supreme court. If we lost the case in supreme court, we will have all doors closed.

9. Similarly, can't we go to Green Tribunal just challenging their 'plan' to build the DG before even going to Courts. Winning in NGT will make our case full proof.

1O - Do, we needed to wait for any action to happen before going to NGT? We can simply go like 'See NGT, this authority is planning for a DG here, which is wrong'.

All I mean to say, that our move should be:

- Go to NGT, challenge the plan. [What can happen, at the most NGT will say that we will intervene only if actual execution of plan will start. Then its fine, we will wait.]

- Go to High court just challenging DG on health ground. Take the stay and fight.

- Go to supreme court, in case we loose in high court. Ideally we will win in high court itself.

GD

On Saturday, July 7, 2012 7:17:14 AM UTC+5:30, GD wrote:

Any Specific reason that why we are not going for a fresh case in High court as 'Resident vs GNN' for stopping DG? This will spare us another option to go into Supreme court, in case things are not in favor in High court?

I don't understand the logic behind attaching residents with builder's case, where it is very much evident that the builder's original case is out of their greed [to grab GNN land] and they can not win the same in any court.

Please let me now, if I am understanding it wrong, in the context of filing a SLP [Special Leave Petition].

=GD