Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1677th meeting held on 10.11.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1677th meeting held on 10.11.2022 respectively was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2018, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion (Phase-I-comprising of mini campus, admin block, and startup block) at its meeting held on September 22, 2022.
4. The building plan proposal in respect of plot no. A-7 (Phase-1B-comprising of Hostel Block, 4BHK residential tower, Director’s Residence) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion (online) held, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage but 3D views of the proposed blocks are found to be missing in the submission. However, during the discussion (online) the architect showed one 3D view of each of the proposed blocks. It was suggested to submit a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views of proposed building blocks including public interface areas (including the porch, drop-off area, ramps, night views to understand lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views etc.) with better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal is situated on a large campus with various existing buildings all around.  It cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c. Provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans and other parking details, location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

d. It should be ensured via design and architecture that the user/visitor experience is welcoming and inviting. Careful selection and use of appropriate architectural elements/materials shall be done to ensure harmony and unity in the design.

e. (For residential blocks) the dish antennas and drying of clothes in the balconies shall be screened and shown in the design scheme (plans/elevations/3D views).

f. Also, the elevations and sections provided need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

g. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, and a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted for review by the Commission.

h. The nomenclature of the 4 BHK Residences is not understood clearly as only three bedrooms are visible, which needs to be relooked at.

i. The provision of utilities, services, solar panels, and other facilities etc., on the terrace, to be clearly reflected in the drawings/3d views across all buildings, to give a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics from aerial perspectives and tall buildings in the vicinity.

j. Outdoor air-conditioners spoil the visual & urban aesthetics. Air-conditioning mechanism of each proposed block is elucidated with a better screening strategy etc.

k. In case the entry to basement ramps needs to be covered in the future, it is suggested to provide their design and related details at this stage, to ensure they duly get incorporated in the design scheme.

l. Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission, solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated in the design so as not to mar the aesthetics and help to reduce the carbon footprint. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

m. Work of art as per the terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. needs to be provided.

n. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

5. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal received at the formal stage could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2018, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion (Phase-I-comprising of mini campus, admin block, and startup block) at its meeting held on September 22, 2022.
4. The building plan proposal in respect of plot no. A-7 (Phase-1B-comprising of Academic Block (Block A & B) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion (online) held, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage but only one 3D views of the proposed block was found. It was suggested to submit a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views of the proposed building block including public interface areas (including the porch, drop-off area, ramps, night views to understand the lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views etc.) with better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal is situated on a large campus with various existing buildings all around.  It cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c. Provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans and other parking details, location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

d. It should be ensured via design and architecture that the user/visitor experience is welcoming and inviting. Careful selection and use of appropriate architectural elements/materials shall be done to ensure harmony and unity in the design.

e. Also, the elevations and sections provided need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, and a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted for review by the Commission.

g. The provision of utilities, services, solar panels, and other facilities etc., on the terrace, to be clearly reflected in the drawings/3d views across all buildings, to give a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics from aerial perspectives and tall buildings in the vicinity.

h. Outdoor air-conditioners spoil the visual & urban aesthetics. Air-conditioning mechanisms be elucidated with better screening strategies etc.

i. In case the entry to basement ramps needs to be covered in the future, it is suggested to provide their design and related details at this stage, to ensure they duly get incorporated in the design scheme.

j. Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission, solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated in the design so as not to mar the aesthetics and help to reduce the carbon footprint. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k. Work of art as per the terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. needs to be provided.

l. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

5. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal received at the formal stage could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 17, 2018, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while approving the proposal at the formal stage following specific observation was given communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-05101855017 dated 18.10.2018:

While examining the design proposal at the completion stage it was evident that the same has not been complied with, and needs clarifications.

b. From the site photographs provided by the architect, it was evident that the work on site is still in progress and a lot of construction material lying scattered all around etc. clearly establish that the construction work is still in progress. The proposal for the completion plan shall be submitted once all the works including civil, landscape etc. is complete.

c. The proposal has not been sufficiently documented to the extent that the photographs of the completed structure (for which portion NOC has been applied including a multi-purpose hall (block-A), a residential building (block-B), research lab (block-C), etc.) are not captured explicitly. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required including the foyer, halls, gate, boundary wall, basement, terrace, nighttime photographs etc.) must be provided & documented with suitable labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides for a better understanding of the proposal.

d. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks be provided.

e. The proposal is at completion stage, need to submit an appropriate number of completed Work of art in terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal (2B+S+G+4 Floors) at its meeting held on December 28, 2018, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 5th floor over the existing building 2B+S+G+4 Floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. From the site photographs provided by the architect/proponent, the Commission took note that the structural work on the site is in progress to the extent that the structure has been erected till the fourth floor.

b. Inconsistencies have been observed in the submission, only one 3D view has been received and the same is not corresponding to the elevations submitted. The proposal is at the formal stage and should be consistent and coordinated submission including plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc. be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

c. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage it needs to submit a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views of the proposed building block including public interface areas (including the porch, drop-off area, ramps, and night views to understand the lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views etc.) with better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

d. Provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans and other parking details, location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. All requisite requirements shall adhere to the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e. It should be ensured via design and architecture that the user/visitor experience is welcoming and inviting. Careful selection and use of appropriate architectural elements/materials shall be done to ensure harmony and unity in the design.

f. Co-ordinated elevations and sections need to be submitted clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

g. The project is submitted at the Formal stage should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well). Also, the skin sections (in detail) should be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

h. Signages provided must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. and be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

i. A dining facility has been proposed on the second floor but its capacity has not been indicated, it needs to be elucidated with a detailed design scheme along with a solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal. The plans are to be supplemented with details of its capacity and furniture layout for its judicious consideration by the Commission.

j. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

k. Rooftop utilities are better elucidated including the installation of solar photovoltaic panels so as not to mar the aesthetics and help to reduce the carbon footprint. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l. Work of art as per the terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. needs to be provided.

m. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Taking into consideration the facts enumerated above, in view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal received at the formal stage could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 12, 1993, and the proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on January 19, 1992. NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on December 15, 2006.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for addition/alteration at its meeting held on September 29, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of the fourth floor and a large basement for car parking) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28092255058 dated 03.10.2022. Based on the previous observations made, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b. All requisite parking requirements shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes etc. must be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 17, 1996.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (extension of drawing room and kitchen and addition of balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b. All encroachments/extensions/corrugated sheets etc. in the building structures shall be removed.

c. It was observed that the 6.00 m wide setbacks have also been calculated to fulfil requisite parking requirements. The Commission strongly suggests that set-back areas/roads counted towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking) are not acceptable. These areas are suggested to be kept free from all vehicular parking requirements; they shall be kept free for emergencies. It is suggested to plan peripheral parking in such a way as to keep a 6.00 m wide setback free from parking all the time. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc. Alternative mechanisms shall be explored to accommodate all the existing and proposed parking requirements of the proposal without compromising areas meant for pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

d. The provision of proposed parking is not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans and other parking details, location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

e. The proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

f. Inconsistencies have been noticed in the design scheme (3D views), the structure columns appear to be suspended in the air, and the screening in the balconies appears to be shown inappropriately. The proposal is at the formal stage and needs to submit well-coordinated drawings including elevations/sections/3D views etc.

g. The added structure shall be such designed so that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

h. The guard room, toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission, ATM etc. is also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

i. Design scheme to screen rain water pipes in the balconies to be elucidated.

j. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. must be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Taking into consideration the facts enumerated above, in view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal received at the formal stage could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 04, 2005, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal (addition of Hostel Block-B+G+22 Floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion (online) held, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

b. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes etc. must be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 15, 2019.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on October 20, 2022, and specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12102264006 dated 25.10.2022, and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., CPWD in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, observations/recommendations received, and the revised submission made, the following observation is made:

a. The Commission observed that while approving the case at the formal stage two multi-level car parking towers (MLCP) were also approved to accommodate the parking requirements of the proposal. While submitting the case at the NOC for the Completion stage the architect/proponent in their reply has indicated that:

“…….now only one multi-level parking tower is proposed and number of car parking is increased in that tower by providing car lift instead of ramps………multi level parking tower for 316 car parking in under construction……”

Taking into consideration the reply furnished by the architect/proponent, while considering the case for NOC for Completion, the Commission has taken note of and accepted the proposal for NOC for Completion (except MLCP).

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approvals taken (formal or NOC for Completion) has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alteration (addition of a new block comprising of 4B + G + service floor + 8 floors above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Work of art shall ensure to be in terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal for additions/alteration (alteration in ground floor and addition of 3 Floors over the existing ground floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Inconsistencies have been observed in the submission. The first floor & above floors have been shown with provision of 1.00 m road widening, however, the ground floor plan has encroached on these road widening provisions. The same need to be corrected and coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.)  be submitted for the review of the Commission.

b. Skin sections (in detail) should be submitted for judicious consideration and understanding of the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the Concept of the Layout and Building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 11, 2018, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the Layout and the Building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 09, 2019, and specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the Completion stage and it has not been sufficiently documented to the extent that the photographs of the completed structure (for which portion NOC has been applied) are not captured explicitly. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required including the basement) must be provided & documented with suitable labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides for a better understanding of the proposal.

b. Double stack parking provisions along with ramps have been made to accommodate requisite parking requirements but the photographs of the same to substantiate its actual construction on site are missing in the submission. An appropriate number of uncut photographs of the same (including the basement) must be supplemented to validate its actual construction at the site.

c. Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

d. Uncut photographs from all sides of the completed structures for which NOC is required (including public interface areas, main gate, boundary wall, roof with services, basement, double stack parking, and night-time photographs etc.) should be supplemented for judicious consideration of the proposal by the Commission.

e. For a better understanding of the proposal at the completion stage side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building block be provided.

5. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for Completion could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the RLDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The Commission accepted the conceptual proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station and its surrounding areas at its meeting held on November 03, 2021, specific observations were given.
3.  The proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the letter no: F. No-A-11013/1/2022-DD-II (E file No-9123145) dated 18.11.2022 received from the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Government of India related to the redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station.
4.  It was observed that the proposal received from the concerned local body i.e., RLDA appears to have not limited the proposal to the boundaries of the New Delhi Railway Station. It was, accordingly, recommended to the RLDA to modify the proposal following the directions received from MoHUA and resubmit the same elucidating with specifically delineating the boundaries of the New Delhi Railway Station for its judicious consideration by the Commission.
5.  In view of the lack of clarity provided on the proposal, the proposal in respect of the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.