Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Compliance Review: 32-Investigation Report (English)

...Request (The “Fourth Request”): On December 23, 2004, the Panel received another Request for Inspection (the “Fourth Request”) dated December 4, 2004, related to the same Project. Unlike the first three Requests that focused on issues related to the SCLR, the fourth Request addressed the JVLR. On December 29, 2004, the Panel notified the Executive Directors, the President and Management that it had received the Fourth Request. This Fourth Request ...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Timeline: 32-Register (English)

...Request 2nd Request Other Comments 1. Request for Inspection received by Secretariat April 28, 2004 June 24, 2004 2. Request Registered April 29, 2004 June 29, 2004 3. Notice of Registration with the Request April 29, 2004 June 29, 2004 sent to the President 4. Notice of Registration sent to: 5. Requesters April 30, 2004 June 29, 2004 6. Executive Directors Apri...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Registration: 32-First Notice of Registration (English)

...Request. The Request alleging violations of Bank Operational Policies and Procedures and requesting that an investigation be recommended to the Board of Executive Directors of the Bank was addressed and sent to the Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity which delivered it to the Inspection Panel on April 28, 2004. In view of the nature of the complaint and the alleged violations of Bank Operational Policies and Procedures as described hereunder, the Panel is satisfied that the Request is u...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Eligibility: 32-Eligibility Report (English)

...Request and registered it on April 28, 2004. In it the USOA Requesters asked that an investigation be recommended to the Bank’s 39 Letter from USOA Requesters to Panel, July 22, 2004. 40 First Request,¶3. 41 Ibid. 42 Letter from Requesters to MMRDA Commissioner dated December 8, 2003 and enclosed with the First Request. 43 Ibid. 44 Letter from USOA Requesters, July 22, 2004. 45 First Request, ¶5. ...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Management Action Plan: 32-Sixth Management Progress Report

...Requesters from Gazi Nagar relocated to a non-MUTP site of their choice. The third group of Requesters from Bharti Nagar was left unaffected by SCLR. The fourth group of Requesters representing shopkeepers affected by the Jogeshwari Road-over- Bridges (ROBs) is not a part of the MUTP R&R process as the ROBs were excluded from the Project during its restructuring in 2008. MMRDA handed over the list of 389 ROB-affected shopkeepers and as many alternative shops to the Municipal Corporation of Great...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Management Response: 32-First Management Response (English)

...REQUEST 4. The Request for Inspection was submitted by members of the United Shop Own- ers Association, a non-governmental organization, on its own behalf and on behalf of 118 residents of Mumbai who claim to be adversely affected by the Project (hereafter referred to as the “Requesters”). 5. Attached to the Request are: (i) Letter from the United Shop Owners Association to the Commissioner, MMRDA, dated December 8, 2003, concerning a request for information...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Management Action Plan: 32-Fifth Management Progress Report

...Requesters group from Gazi Nagar relocated to a non-MUTP site of their choice. The Third group of Requesters from Bharti Nagar was left unaffected by the SCLR work. The Fourth group of Requesters representing shopkeepers affected by the Jogeshwari ROBs is not a part of the MUTP Resettlement and Rehabilitation process as the ROBs were excluded from the Project during restructuring in 2008 (see Annex 5). MMRDA has handed over the eligibility list of 389 shopkeepers affected by the RoBs who will be...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Eligibility: 32-Management Report and Recommendation (English)

...Request was submitted by the United Shop Owners Association on its own behalf and on behalf of 118 residents of Mumbai (hereaf- ter referred to as the “Requesters”). The Executive Directors and the President of the IBRD were notified by the Panel of receipt of the Request. Management responded to the Request on May 27, 2004. 2. On June 24, 2004, the Panel registered a second Request for Inspection, IPN Re- quest RQ04/04 (“the Second Request”), concerning the Project. The Second Request was...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Management Action Plan: 32-Inspection Panel Progress Report

...Requests for Inspection related to the India: Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)2 . The first Request (“the First Request” 3 ) for Inspection was received on April 28, 2004. Management submitted its Response to the First Request on May 27, 2004. The Panel received a second Request for Inspection (the “Second Request’) on June 24, 2004, which related to the same Project. 4 On July 28, 2004, Management submitted...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Management Action Plan: 32-Fourth Management Progress Report

...Requesters, Gazi Nagar, has relocated from SCLR to a non-MUTP site of their choice. With respect to the third group of Requesters, the Bharti Nagar residents along the SCLR, MMRDA has clarified that the Project will neither affect nor disturb these Requesters. The fourth group of Requesters, the shopkeepers affected by Jogeshwari ROB has not been resettled. Now that the ROBs have been removed from MUTP as part of Project restructuring, this group will be resettled as per the agreed procedure exp...

Complaint > Mumbai Urban Transport Project

Management Action Plan: 32-First Management Progress Report

...requests for prior review for 1,205 households, consisting of 1,056 from the Kurla railway line, 30 shopkeepers from SCLR and 119 from JVLR-II, including 109 shopkeepers. The Bank reviewed these cases and provided its no objection by advising MMRDA to follow certain actions prior to shifting of people, such as the issuance of identity cards, payment of shifting allowances, and ensuring that the buildings are ready for occupation. In some other cases, MMRDA could not submit the request for prior ...