Biased Order by the Internal Lokpal of Aam Aadmi Party on compalint against Mayank Gandhi in the ROMF scam regarding re-development of Chira Bazaar and protest against the candidature of Mayank Gandhi. Submitted: 03/19/2014 4:05 pm To, Aam Aadmi Party Office, 41, Hanuman Road, New Delhi - 110 001 Attn.: Mr. Prashant Bhushan. Date: 19/3/14 Dear Sir, This is with reference to the order by the Internal Lokpal of Aam Aadmi Party on compalint against Mayank Gandhi, member of the national executive of AAP in the ROMF scam regarding re-development of Chira Bazaar. I have read, in detail, the said order passed and have observed that the clean chit given by the Internal Lokpal of Aam Aadmi Party is devoid of any merit and has deliberately chosen to overlook stark facts, pros and cons of the case, and is heavily biased in favour of Mayank Gandhi by exonerating him when realities and facts point out otherwise. It is very clear that the NGO ROMF (Re-making Of Mumbai Federation) has deliberately and wilfully lied and misled tenants and owners into giving their consents in favour of ROMHIF (Re-making Of Mumbai Housing Infrastructure Ltd.) which is controlled by Lok Housing Ltd. So, while the spade work is done by the NGO ROMF, on paper, the consent is in favour of ROMHIF. Additionally, false and misleading announcements of support of prominent citizens and of Govt. clearances deliberately made over and over again for 3 years in the media by the NGO ROMF to trap tenants and owners. The consenting tenants and owners were and are not aware of the actual plans put up before the authorities and the ownership structure of ROMHIF was kept a secret and the ROMF website was completely silent on it. I would appreciate if you could shed light on the following queries. 1) If ROMF did the ground work for Chira Bazaar Cluster Redevelopment proposal for 3 years round the clock (as rightly mentioned on website), then why ROMHIF and Lok Housing are paid Rs 10 crores by Unity Developers and also have share in profits from joint ventures, sweat equity and other payments? The Valuation Officer has valued the joint development agreement at about Rs 728 crores. The rights and benefits of both parties are equal in the said agreement. 2) Who owns Remaking of Mumbai brand equity which is due to long list of eminent persons, dignitaries and numerous Associations? 3) Who was funding the NGO ROMF and Why? 4) How was this dubious Chira Bazaar proposal processed at all (and then surprisingly cleared) by the High Powered Committee of MCGM? 5) When so called consents of thousands of tenants in favour of ROMHIF were obtained by ROMF, was adequate disclosure made of the interests of Lok Housing Ltd in ROMHIF? 6) Why were HDFC Chairman Deepak Parekh and former MC D M Sukhtankar, Narinder Nayar of Bombay First, Citispaces name mentioned (as being part of ROMF) initially without their consent? 7) Why did not ROMF involve Tata Housing, Godrej Properties or L & T (who have past demonstrated performance in large projects, financial capacity/capital adequacy commensurate with scale of project) for Chira Bazaar Cluster Redevelopment? On what basis URDL, ROMUD AND ROMHIF- Lok Group entities- selected by ROMF for the massive Chira Bazaar Cluster Redevelopment? 8) Why ROMF website had no reference to ROMHIF (it’s so called commercial arm) and Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd? 9) What is the relationship between NGO ROMF AND ROMHIF, ROMD and Lok Housing? 10) If ROMHIF has the purported tenants’ consents collected by NGO ROMF, then can ROMHIF sell interests in the project to URDL and third party developers? Were thousands of tenants of Chira Bazaar cluster consulted for appointing third party developers? 11) Why associations like Tenants Association of India and Slum Rehabilitation Society were suddenly formed in 2007? 12) Since Lok Housing Ltd (as per Directors Report) has 49% stake in the holding company ROMD for ROMHIF, which entities/persons have balance 51% stake? 13) If cluster is the vision and avowed object of the NGO then why does the agreement give option to both parties of piecemeal development under DCR 33(7) or sell or dispose off the residual land (in parcels of 5 acres) and /or interest therein by charging entry premium not less than Rs 2 crore per acre from third party developer? Lastly, I would like to conclude that the internal Lokpal of the AAP does not have any judicial powers to implicate or exonerate anyone. This power lies only with the Courts. Also, in this case, it seems that the accused, AAP, is also the judge and jury, all-in-one. In view of the above, Mayank Gandhi should not be allowed to contest elections since in your own words Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) remains committed to not give ticket for contesting elections to any one with proven charges of corruption, criminality or moral turpitude and if such proven charges are brought to our notice, they will be duly examined and appropriate action will be taken. and Mayank Gandhi should be immediately re-called so that the prestige of AAP is not lowered. I shall be informing the media in case I do not receive any response form you regarding action taken. Awaiting your response at the earliest and thanking you in anticipation.
Posted on: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:57:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015