Govt to review ADB funding proposal for redevelopment of Walled City

The Delhi government is likely to review its proposal for funding from Asian Development Bank (ADB) for Shahjahanabad Redevelopment plan, pending for two years.

Recently, the Delhi High Court asked the government to apprise it about the proposal.

“With the instructions from the High Court, the government is likely to re-examine the proposal for revitalisation of the Walled City area. The next date of hearing is January 19,” said a source.

To expedite the project and smooth coordination among all stakeholders—North Delhi Municipal Corporation, PWD, Delhi Traffic Police, Delhi Jal Board, Discoms and others agencies —the court appointed PWD secretary Ashwini Kumar as chief nodal officer.

A bench comprising justices BD Ahmed and Ashutosh Kumar also directed that agencies should meet once every two weeks to ensure progress in the project.

“Ashwini Kumar shall convene a meeting of all the nodal officers and other officials and stakeholders concerned every fortnight to ensure that there is progress in the matter. The minutes of each meeting shall be filed within a week thereafter before this court,” said the bench.

Read: Coming: Food plaza, walkways and more at Old Delhi’s Netaji Subhash Marg

In Februray, the court nominated deputy general manager (project and administration), Nitin Panigrahi, as the point person for coordination. According to the court order, he will continue and assist Kumar.

The Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation (SRDC) prepared a preliminary project report for assistance and finance of Rs 1,840 crore from ADB in October 2014.

A presentation was also made before then lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung when the President’s Rule was in force in the national capital.

Later, the chief secretary approved the proposal too.

On government’s instruction, the proposal for financial assistance was squeezed to Rs 1,400 crore, a senior government official said. However, it was not taken up appropriately, the source said.

In December 2014, the finance and planning department said the proposal was the right way to redevelop the area. “Comments were sought from the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA) in July 2016, which also said the proposal is timely intervention. After that, it was presented before the board meeting. Later, there was no discussion about it,” he added.