In a suprise move, CMDA replied to an important RTI stating that they had not given any NOC to EVP Housing chennai Pvt Ltd i.e EVP Town Tharapakkam Project.
Then whether the following is orginal or fake????????
They are obviously bluffing. Even the Transport Dept. affidavit in the High court makes a mention of this letter without disputing it. Although, it is very obvious that the Realty guys 'bought' this letter from CMDA. The CMDA has no mandate to give such letters. The whole purpose of this letter was to deceive us in case some one raised questions. Now they will hide behind some loopholes saying that the member secretary is not the appropriate authority to issue such letters, and hence it is null and void. During my short interaction with the collector during the meeting at Kanchipuram, he made it clear that the real estate guys knew the aquisition plan well in advance but still proceeded with it.
The issue here is not about the validity of the CMDA approval. It is indeed a valid document. The present case is about the extra bit of assurance by a certain 'member, secretary' of CMDA issuing a statement that the mentioned survey numbers will not be aquired for Airport expansion. In my opinion such decision has to be taken by a larger governemnental body. Only the execution authority remains with CMDA. The CMDA has no locus standi to issue such a guarantee in writing.
They are obviously bluffing. Even the Transport Dept.
ReplyDeleteaffidavit in the High court makes a mention of this letter
without disputing it. Although, it is very obvious that
the Realty guys 'bought' this letter from CMDA. The CMDA
has no mandate to give such letters. The whole purpose of
this letter was to deceive us in case some one raised
questions. Now they will hide behind some loopholes saying that the member secretary is not the appropriate authority to issue such letters, and hence it is null and void.
During my short interaction with the collector during
the meeting at Kanchipuram, he made it clear that the
real estate guys knew the aquisition plan well in advance
but still proceeded with it.
Subramaniam.
The issue here is not about the validity of the CMDA
ReplyDeleteapproval. It is indeed a valid document. The present
case is about the extra bit of assurance by a certain
'member, secretary' of CMDA issuing a statement that
the mentioned survey numbers will not be aquired for
Airport expansion. In my opinion such decision has
to be taken by a larger governemnental body. Only
the execution authority remains with CMDA. The CMDA
has no locus standi to issue such a guarantee in writing.
Subramaniam.