Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1864th meeting held on 16.04.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1864th meeting held on 16.04.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2018 and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion plans proposal (for Phase-I comprising of mini campus, admin block and startup block) at its meeting held on September 22, 2022. 
3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (Phase-IB) at its meeting held on January 19, 2023.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (part - Hostel Block, 3BHK+Study Residential Tower, and Director’s Residence) received (through email) at the completion stage was scrutinised, including drawings, documentations, and photographs etc., the proposal for Part NOC for Completion (Hostel Block, 3BHK+Study Residential Tower, Director’s Residence) is accepted.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal (comprising of basement + ground + 2 upper floors) received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commisison intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online but he was not available. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, photographs submitted, and unavailability of the architect online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission at the formal stage, as requisite documentation is missing, including uncut site photographs with contextual references to understand the existing site context and its relationship with the surroundings. Further, the project report indicating the project intent and the details, landscape plan, and a detailed parking plan indicating the location of vehicles, circulation patterns, and other necessary details are also missing. The architect shall ensure that the formal stage submission is complete in all respects, including plans, elevations, sections, 3D views (materiality on the façade) for the judicious review of the Commission.

b) The proposal appears to have been designed without adequate consideration of its structural system. While a basement has been proposed for domestic storage, the necessary structural arrangements have not been clearly addressed, which may impact the functionality of the rooms above. It is therefore recommended that the structural system be comprehensively resolved at this stage and the design scheme be revised accordingly.

c) Detailed skin sections shall also be submitted to clearly illustrate the façade treatment, including material specifications and provisions for weather protection. To ensure a thorough evaluation of the proposal, detailed sections, including longitudinal and cross-sections that encompass the entire site, must be submitted.

d) The design of the guard room, main gate and boundary wall can significantly influence the overall aesthetics of the complex; therefore, detailed drawings including gate/grill details, material applications, and their coordination with plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views shall be provided.

e) Large balconies have been provided without adequately addressing rainwater discharge and associated screening mechanisms; if not resolved at this stage, exposed RWPs may adversely impact the visual character of the campus. The scheme shall be revised with necessary details, including provisions for RWPs, drying areas, outdoor air conditioners, and appropriate screening to ensure the façade aesthetics are not adversely affected.

f) Landscape details are missing in the submission. These shall be submitted in the respective drawings and shall indicate the details of the trees planted on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) Terrace plan has been provided without any utilities and services including outdoor air-conditioners, solar panels, water tanks, rain water mechanism etc. All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage is incomplete, lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the Service Station cum CNG Online filling station (demolishing an old building (only a small portion of the old building) at its meetings held on December 11, 2025 and February 26, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for Service Station cum CNG Online filling station (demolishing an old building while retaining only a small portion) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20022655003 dated 03-03-2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal received at conceptual stage at its meeting held on April 16, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building proposal for residential building (ground + three floors) received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission, with respect to the plot area details, which appear to be inconsistent as indicated below:

As per proforma: 105.515 Sqm

As per project report: 104.515 Sqm

The proposal has been submitted at the formal stage; however, the ground coverage and FAR calculations are based on the stated plot area. Any inconsistencies in the plot area may lead to variations in these calculations and consequently impact the overall planning of the scheme. The architect shall ensure that the submission is consistent in all respects, including accurate and verified plot area details.

b) Similarly, the proposed 3D view of the front façade and the front elevation do not match, the 3D views show exposed brick work pattern however, elevations show horizontal lines.  The architect shall ensure that the submission is consistent in all respects, including 3D views, and elevations etc.

c) Weather protection to the proposed windows do not understand. Detailed skin sections shall also be submitted to clearly illustrate the façade treatment, including material specifications and provisions for weather protection. To ensure a thorough evaluation of the proposal, detailed sections (including skin sections), longitudinal and cross-sections that encompass the entire site, must be submitted.

d) As per the proposed 3D views, the GRC jaalis appear to obstruct the functioning of windows, and their purpose, material characteristics, and functional implications remain unclear in the submission. The same shall be reviewed and revised to ensure proper functionality.

e) The Commission observed that the proposal needs to be considered holistically and not in isolation. The ground floor plan has been submitted without indicating details such as the front road, road levels, plinth levels rendering the submission inadequate and non-comprehensible. Theses shall be duly indicated in the plans for preventing surface run-off and understanding. It shall also be ensured that no steps are provided within public areas, and that all such elements are contained within the property line.

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

g) The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

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

Building plans proposal in respect of “Super Speciality Block in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital Complex, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal forwarded by the architect was scrutinized. In terms of the Gazette notification no. 4/2/2009/UD/l/6565 dated 1st October 2009 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi ‘Dr. RML Hospital and Campus at Wellington Crescent’ listed in the notified list at serial no. 7 are in the Grade-III.
3. The Commission approved the building plans of the proposal at its meeting held on September 23, 2015. Subsequently, the revised building plans proposal for “Super Speciality block along with the proposal for multilevel car parking” was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on July 16, 2021, specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not accept the NOC for (Completion Stage) at its meeting held on March 19, 2026; specific observations were given.
5. The building proposal (Super Speciality Block) received (through online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs; the following observation is to be complied with:

a) During its meeting on October 17, 2024, the Commission issued specific guidelines through memorandum no. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024, for the conceptual proposal under review. It was noted that the authorization from the owner appointing the architect for the project was missing from the checklist. As the proposal is at the conceptual stage, it is imperative to provide accurate and complete documentation, adhering to the requirements specified in the checklist for conceptual proposals (available on the OPAAS login page under "Steps to Submit Proposals for Conceptual Proposals"). This will ensure that the Commission appropriately considers the proposal.

6. The Commission did not consider the proposal due to a lack of information at the Conceptual stage (as per the checklist available on the DUAC website). Thus, the architect is advised to provide complete and correct information to ensure consideration of the proposal.

Building plans proposal in respect of “JJV Nikunj Hotel Complex” at Plot no. 1, NH-8, Samalkha. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier the Commission accepted the Conceptual proposal for the existing block at its meeting held on June 12, 2019; specific observations were given. Subsequently the Commission approved the proposal for addition/ alteration at its meeting held on July 24, 2019; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the conceptual proposal for the JJV Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no. 1, NH-8, Samalkha at its meetings held on December 18, 2025 and March 5, 2026; specific observations were made.
4. The building plans proposal for JJV Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no.1, NH-8, Samalkha received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-23022627006 dated 12-03-2026. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that while considering the proposal at its meeting held on March 05, 2026 it has concluded that:

“…..the Commission decided not to consider the proposal at the conceptual stage and advised the Architect to resubmit the proposal through the concerned local body at the formal stage with complete documentation, including clear demarcation of the plot, for the judicious review of the Commission….”

b) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission. The proposal, at the conceptual stage, has been submitted without the requisite documentation. As per the Commission’s meeting held on October 17, 2024, specific guidelines were issued vide Memorandum No. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024, for conceptual proposals under review. It has been noted that essential documents such as the authorization from the owner appointing the architect, proof of valid registration of the architect with the Council of Architecture (COA), and registration with the local body (including license details in case of non-architects) have not been provided as part of the submission checklist. Moreover, the credentials submitted pertain to a different architect, including the authorization from the owner appointing the architect for the project and proof of valid registration with the Council of Architecture (COA) which is not acceptable.

c) Since the proposal is at the conceptual stage, it is essential to furnish accurate and complete documentation in accordance with the requirements specified in the checklist for conceptual proposals (available on the OPAAS login page under “Steps to Submit Proposals for Conceptual Proposals”). This will enable the Commission to appropriately consider the proposal.

d) It is again reiterated that:

“….the Commission decided not to consider the proposal at the conceptual stage and advised the Architect to resubmit the proposal through the concerned local body at the formal stage with complete documentation, including clear demarcation of the plot, for the judicious review of the Commission...”