Prem Lata Sood and others, (2007)11 SCC 40, the question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 247 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, which provides for a legal fiction specifying a period of 60 days within which the application for grant of sanction of a building plan should be granted, failing which, Page 145 of 186 145 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT permission would be deemed to have been granted. The Supreme Court took the view that a legal fiction must be construed having regard to the purport and object of the Act for which the same was enacted."
The Court made the following observations in para 44 :
"There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that an owner of a property is entitled to enjoy his property and all the rights pertaining thereto. The provisions contained in a statute like the 1994 Act and the building bye-laws framed thereunder, however, provide for regulation in relation to the exercise and use of such right of an owner of a property. Such a regulatory statute must be held to be reasonable as the same is enacted in public interest. Although a deeming provision has been provided in sub- section (1) of Section 247 of the 1994 Act, the same will have restricted operation. In terms of the said provision, the period of sixty days cannot be counted from the date of the original application, when the building plans had been returned to the applicant necessary clarification and/or compliance of the objections raised therein. If no sanction can be granted, when the building plan is not in conformity with the building bye-laws or has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the laws, in our opinion, the restriction would not apply despite the deeming provision."
"What is discernible from the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 44 is that although the law may have provided the deeming provision but if the building plan itself is not in conformity with the building bye-laws or in contravention of the provisions of the Act or laws, then in such circumstances, the deeming provision would not help the person placing reliance on the same. At this stage, it may not be out of place to state that the respondents have placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Live Oak Resort (P) Ltd. v. Panchgani Hill Station Municipal Council, (2001)8 SCC 329, but the said decision in Live Oak Resort (supra) was considered by the Bench in this case, observing as under :
"In that case a building plan had been granted;Page 146 of 186
146 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT construction had been started in terms of the building plan as also the rules which were applicable at the relevant point of time. The question which arose for consideration therein was as to whether a subsequent amendment to the rules, in respect of additional FSI shall have any effect on the sanctioned building plan, it was contended that keeping in view the environmental question, the same will have not.
The said decision having been rendered in the fact situation obtaining therein, which has no similarity to the facts of the present case, which in our opinion, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. The submission of Mr. Ganguli that despite expiry of the period of sanction of the development plan by the State under the 1977 Act, the same should be held to be extended, in our opinion, cannot be accepted."
From the above, it could be said that if the initial action is illegal, that is, if the foundation goes then the superstructure would fall. In the present case also, once we hold that the construction in the absence of environmental clearance is absolutely illegal, then the same by itself would not get regularized with the aid of the deeming provision.
Some what on the same line the Supreme Court in Kalidas Umedram and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (1996)7 SCC 635, took the view that a deemed provision would not be a free licence to make use of the same defeating the object with which such provision is made. The Supreme Court made the following observations as under :
"It is true that the proviso envisages deemed permission if the Collector does not grant permission within three Page 147 of 186 147 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT months from the date of the receipt of the application excluding the time as specified taken thereunder. But the condition is that land should be used for raising commercial crops but not for industrial purposes or for building purposes. Deemed permission would not be a free licence to use the land for any other purpose defeating the object of the grant. The public policy behind the grant is to augment agricultural production so as to enable the tiller of the soil economic empowerment and social and economic justice assured in the Preamble to the Constitution of India and Articles 38 and 46 to minimise inequalities in income and status. The State distributes under Article 39(b), its material resources to subserve the said purpose. Having obtained the grant or permission, the grantee-appellants cannot convert the land into non-agricultural use as well as for building houses. The sale of government land for nominal amount was for the avowed constitutional purposes. After the conversion, sale of the lands for building purposes would be a windfall. Obviously, the public purpose of the grant and the constitutional goals would be defeated by this method of circumvention. The Government, therefore, is justified in cancelling the grant. Under the above circumstances, the Government was entitled to revoke the grant in respect of the entire extent of land."
In Mansingbhai Kahalsingbhai v. Surat Municipal Corporation, AIR 2001 Guj. 44, the issue before the Division Bench of this Court was, whether the construction work carried out by the petitioners of that case was in accordance with the law or not. In the said case also, it was pleaded that the application for permission to construct was submitted on 7th August 1999 and since there was no communication in that regard within a period of one month, the application can be said to have been granted by a deeming fiction. In the said background, the Bench made the following observations :
"Thus even after a period of one month as stated by the Page 148 of 186 148 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT petitioner is over, it is necessary that unless and until notice is given to the City Engineer, the proposed date of commencement to erect a new building, the petitioners could not have commenced construction work. Section 263 and Rule 3 of Chapter XII refers to deeming provision. Reading the aforesaid provision assuming that the deeming provision is applicable for construction which is otherwise legal even then one has to give notice of commencement of work and only thereafter the work of erection of a building can be commenced. After completion of building within one month thereafter notice is required to be given in writing of completion accompanied by a certificate. Law also prohibits occupying the building in absence of any permit or occupation certificate issued to use the building. In the instant case, there is a flagrant violation of these provisions. No notice has been given and yet we find that persons have occupied the building. This speaks volume about the intention of the petitioners. The Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to bear in mind that persons who are coming to the Court with clean hands and those who have acted in accordance with law are required to be assisted and not the persons who are committing breach of provisions of law."
"Thus, it goes without saying that deemed permission means that a person is erecting building after the expiry of the period mentioned in Rule 3 strictly in accordance with Rules, bye-laws etc. It is required to be emphasised here that when a person moves the Commissioner for permission of erection of a building, the person concerned knows the Rules and Regulations and Bye- laws with regard to Building Regulations. It is for him to carry out the construction as per the Building Regulations and Bye-laws and particularly keeping in mind the FSI. The person who constructs the building as per the Rules and Regulations can say that he has constructed the building as per the requirement of law but not otherwise. The deemed permission can be said to have been attracted in case where a person has carried out construction in accordance with the existing Rules, Bye- laws and Building Regulations and not otherwise. It is required to be noted that likewise the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation before the Apex Court, Rule 3 of Page 149 of 186 149 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT Chapter XII of Appendix IV of the Act provides that if within 30 days there is no disapproval, subject to the Rules one may commence the work of erection of a building but not so as to contravene any provisions of the Act or any Rule or bye-laws. Under the Act before the commencement, notice is required to be given as contemplated in Chapter XII of Appendix IV. In our opinion, therefore, one has to submit a plan for erection of a building keeping in mind all the Building Regulations and if any one constructs contrary to that, the same being illegal must be demolished. The suggestion made by the petitioners that whatever type of the plan is submitted and for which no intimation is given within thirty days then the person is deemed to have been granted permission has no merit. If such a view is taken, it will be for the benefit of wrong doers only who will carry out the construction and will transfer the building/flats and innocent purchasers would be in difficulty. Under the circumstances, if one constructs building in contravention of the Rules and Regulations and Bye-Laws then he is a wrong doer and even if permission is not granted because of connivance or negligence of the Officer, shelter of deeming provision cannot be made available to him. Learned single Judge was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the deemed permission cannot be inconsistent with the Rules and Regulations and no deemed permission can be against the relevant Rules and Regulations."
Case Law relied upon by the Respondents :
We shall now proceed to deal with the various decisions on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
On the point of suppression of material facts, strong reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Page 150 of 186 150 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345. In the said decision of the Supreme Court, it was observed that the Court is not bound to grant special leave on mere asking. A party who approaches a court knowing or having reasonable belief that if the true facts were brought to its notice, the court would not grant special leave, it is his duty to state facts which may reasonably having a bearing on the exercise of the discretionary powers of this court.
The Court observed that any attempt to withhold material information would result in revocation of the order obtained from the court.
There cannot be any debate with the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the facts of that case. This proposition in no manner is applicable in the present case because we have explained that there is no suppression of any material facts at the end of the petitioners. We have explained in the earlier part of our judgment that it is only when the counter was filed to the petition that it came to the notice of one and all that the respondents are relying on a deemed environmental clearance, which was not known to the petitioners. Thus, this decision of the Supreme Court is of no avail to the respondents.
A Division Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Satsangi Shishuvihar Kelavani Trust v. P.N.Patel, 1977 GLR 615, has been relied in support of the submissions with regard to the deeming fiction. In the said case, the Court considered Page 151 of 186 151 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT Sections 36(2) and 36(3) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. Section 36(2) provides for a deeming fiction that if the authorized officer fails to communicate its decision within the prescribed 45 days' period to the Manager, the action proposed shall be deemed to have been approved. Under Section 36(3) of the Act, in the context of suspension pending inquiry, the failure to communicate ratification of such suspension by the authorized officer within the period of 45 days would result into suspension ceasing to have any effect on the expiry of such period. In the facts of that case, the court observed that in case of action of termination of service of an employee by a school management previous permission was contemplated and subsequent ratification was also contemplated in suspension pending enquiry, but in both the cases deemed fiction would come into operation on the expiry of this 45 days' statutory period from the date of the receipt of the concerned proposal or action of suspension. The court observed that in case of suspension, such suspension would cease to have effect on the expiry of 45 days' period. The Court took the view that a fiction must have full statutory operation and there would not be any question of waiver or any extension or enlargement of a statutory period by unilateral action of the management or even by any waiver or consent.
This decision has been relied upon with a view to fortify the submission that the deeming fiction must be given its full meaning. As a proposition of law, we are in agreement with the same, but this decision is of no avail to the respondents because in the present case we have taken the view that prior Page 152 of 186 152 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT to the grant of any deemed environmental clearance, if there is a violation of the provisions of the Notification, 2006, then such breach or violation would not get cured or rectified by grant of deemed environmental clearance under a deeming provision.
In Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Darshan Lal, AIR 1946 Lahore 413, a learned Single Judge considered the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act. In the said case, the Court considered Sections 195 and 195A of the Act, which provide that, where an application for sanction to continue the construction of a building which was stopped in pursuance of a notice under Section 195A was made to a Municipal Committee, but no order was passed thereon within a period of 60 days laid down by Section 193(4) of the Act, and the applicant completes the building after the statutory period, the sanction to build must be deemed to have been granted by the Municipal Committee. This judgment has been relied upon, more particularly, to lay emphasis on the observations made by the Court to the effect that there is no difference between an express sanction and a sanction which is in law deemed to have been granted.
This decision also is of no avail to the respondents because if the principle laid down in the said decision is considered closely, then in our opinion, it should help the petitioners. This decision is not helpful for two reasons: first, the court had no occasion to consider the issue as to what would be the position if the construction would have been completed prior to the expiry of 60 days as laid down by Page 153 of 186 153 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT Section 193(4) of the Act. Whether, in such circumstances, the person who wanted to put up the construction could have relied upon the deeming provision, and secondly, in the said case the construction was admittedly put up after the statutory period was over i.e. 60 days. If that be so, then with a view to give true meaning and effect to the deeming provision, the court was justified in holding that it would not make any difference between an express sanction and a sanction which is in law deemed to have been given. In short, what we want to convey is that an illegality already committed would not be saved by a grant of sanction, which is in law, deemed to be granted.
In Live Oak Resort (P) Ltd. and another v. Panchgani Hill Station Municipal Council and another, (2001)8 SCC 329, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. In the said case, the Supreme Court considered the effect of the deemed sanction in the facts of that case. So far as this decision is concerned, we have taken note of the same in the earlier portion of our judgment and have observed that this judgment has been distinguished and explained in a subsequent judgment which we have quoted. However, in Live Oak Resort (supra), the Court took the view that where no orders are communicated within 60 days from the date of submission of the application either by way of a grant or refusal thereto, the authority shall be deemed to have permitted the proposed construction. In this case also, it was not the complaint that the appellants had completed the construction before the expiry of 60 days and thereafter took shelter of the deeming provision. In the facts Page 154 of 186 154 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT of that case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the deeming provision saved the situation. This judgment also, in our opinion, is of no avail to the respondents.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1996)2 SCC 449, has been relied upon to once again explain the deeming fiction provided by any provision of law. In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court observed that in view of the deeming provision under the Explanations, although the goods which were produced or manufactured at an intermediate stage and consumed or utilised for the manufacture of another commodity in a continuous process would be deemed to have been removed from such place or premises immediately before such consumption or utilisation. The Court said that it was well settled that a deeming provision was an admission of the non- existence of the fact deemed. Therefore, in view of the deeming provision under the Explanations, although the goods which were produced or manufactured at an intermediate stage and, thereafter, consumed or utilised in the integrated process for the manufacture of another commodity were not actually removed, they had to be regarded as having been removed. In the said case, the State of Rajasthan had issued a notification under Section 7(1) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, informing the public that, in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of that Act, it proposed to extend the limits of the Kota Municipality so as to include therein the village of Raipura and it invited objections thereto. However, it was not followed by a final notification. In the case of the village of Ummedganj, there was a notification extending the Page 155 of 186 155 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT limits of the Kota municipality to include it, but it had also not been proceeded by a notification inviting objections of the public thereto. Later, another notification was published in 1960, whereby the village of Ummedganj was excluded from the limits of Kota Municipality. The provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 in regard to the delimitation of the municipalities and the procedure in that behalf were substantially similar to the one contained in the 1951 Act. The provisions of Sections 4 to 7 of the 1959 Act and the earlier provisions of the 1951 Act in the same behalf were, therefore, not met in the case of either the village of Raipura or the village of Ummedganj. Sections 4 to 7 of the Act remained on the statute book unamended when the Kota Municipal Limits (Continued Existence) Validating Act, 1975 was passed. Section 3 of the Validating Act provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4 to 7 of the 1959 Act or in any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj should be deemed always to have continued to exist and they continue to exist within the limits of the Kota Municipality to all intents and fall all purposes. In the aforesaid facts of the case, the court took the view that the Validating Act required the deeming of the legal position that the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj fell within the limits of the Kota municipality and not the deeming of facts from which that legal consequence would flow. The court observed that when a fact is to be deemed, its consequences and incidents are also to be deemed, that is to say, what follows from the deemed facts is also to be deemed.
This decision, in our opinion, is of no avail to the Page 156 of 186 156 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT respondents as the principle of deeming provision was applied in the facts of that case.
In State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak and others, AIR 1953 SC 244, the Supreme Court observed that, when a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact and truth was not done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. There cannot be any debate with the principle of law explained by the Supreme Court, and if this principle is applied in its full vigor, the same, in no manner, helps the respondents. What could be deemed in our case is the grant of environmental clearance with prospective effect and it would be open thereafter to go ahead with the developments in accordance with the Notification, 2006, but in any case, a deeming fiction cannot be applied retrospectively so as to submit that whatever illegality has been committed stands cured and rectified.
In State of Karnataka and another v. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, (2006)4 SCC 683, the Supreme Court explained the doctrine of res judicata in the facts of that case. In that case, the project in question was a mega project which was in the larger public interest of the State of Karnataka. A Public Interest Litigation was filed by an organization challenging the Framework Agreement (for short, 'FWA') on the ground that the land which was being acquired was in far excess than what was required for the project. It was Page 157 of 186 157 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT argued before the High Court of Karnataka that the land requirement in Schedule 1 of the FWA was highly exaggerated and would illegally create huge profits for Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (for short, 'Nandi'). The Supreme Court took notice of the fact that the project was earlier challenged by one H.T.Somashekar Reddy on the same grounds on which the subsequent public interest litigation was filed before the High Court. In the earlier round of litigation, the Karnataka High Court had held that the Government had not acted arbitrarily in entering into an agreement with the respondent no.2 and the agreement was not illegal as being opposed to public policy. The court had also held that the agreement in no manner contravened any constitutional provision or existing enactments. Accordingly, the petition was rejected by the High Court.
It appears that thereafter once again with respect to the same subject matter, a public interest litigation was filed raising two questions : (1) whether the FWA entered into between the Government of Karnataka and Nandi was a result of any fraud or misrepresentation; and (2) whether any excess land than what was required for the project had been acquired by the State Government, and whether it was open to it to raise such a plea.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions directing the State of Karnataka and all its instrumentalities to execute the project as conceived originally and to implement the FWA in letter and spirit. The High Court also directed the prosecution of the Chief Secretary of the Page 158 of 186 158 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT Government of Karnataka, Under Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, as envisaged by Section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure for certain offences which came to be notice of the Supreme Court as a result of the affidavits filed by them.
The State of Karnataka came up in appeal before the Supreme Court and mainly contended that the second petition filed before the High Court was hit by the principles of res judicata since the issue of excess land was 'directly and substantially in issue' in the first round of litigation. The Supreme Court, in order to appreciate such contentions, looked into the prayers made in the previous public interest litigation as compared to the prayers made in the subsequent petition. The Supreme Court noticed that the prayers in both the petitions were substantially the same. The Supreme Court, thereafter, considered, whether there was any fresh cause of action for filing a second petition, and on the basis of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the very FWA that was uphold earlier was impugned for the second time. The Supreme Court, thereafter, considered that the issue of excess land was specifically raised in the first round of litigation which was decided by the High Court in favour of the State Government and, therefore, the same issue could not have been raised for the second time.
Thus, the Supreme Court, on the basis of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the cause of action, the issues raised, the prayers made, the reliefs sought in first petition and the claims and arguments in the second petition Page 159 of 186 159 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT were substantially the same and, therefore, the plea of the appellant State Government that the judgment in the first round of litigation operated as a res judicata for the questions raised in the second petition.
In the aforesaid background, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider the principle and philosophy behind Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which prevents the abuse of the process of the court.
During the course of hearing of this petition, a lot of emphasis was put on para 39 of this decision. In para 39, the Supreme Court has referred to a decision in the case of Greenhalgh v. Mallard, reported in (1947)2 All ER 255, wherein Somervell, L.J. observed thus :
"I think that on the authorities to which I will refer it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the Court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them."
In our opinion, this decision which has been relied upon to fortify the defence of res judicata is of no avail to the respondents because it could not be said that the issues raised in the present petition were directly and substantially in issue in Writ Petition (PIL) No.194 of 2011.
Page 160 of 186
160 of 189
C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT
N.D.Jayal and another v. Union of India and others, (2004)9 SCC 362, has been relied upon in support of the submissions that once the EAC, after due consideration of the matter, recommended grant of environmental clearance to the State Government, then in such circumstances, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not sit in appeal over such recommendations. In the case before the Supreme Court, the issue was one relating to the Tehri Dam Project. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that the necessity or effectiveness of conducting 3D Non-Linear Test or Dam Break Analysis was taken into account by the Government and if the Government decided not to conduct such tests upon the opinion of the expert bodies concerned, then the Court should not advice the Government to go for such tests unless mala fides, arbitrariness or irrationality is attributed to such decision. The Court took the view that when the Government or the authority concerned, after due consideration of all the viewpoints and full application of mind, had taken a decision, then it was not appropriate for the Court to interfere. The Court observed that such matters must be left to the mature wisdom of the Government or the implementing agency. The Court also observed that if the situation demands, the Courts should take only a detached decision based on the pattern of the well- settled principles of administrative law. If any such decision was based on irrelevant consideration or non-consideration of material or was thoroughly arbitrary, then the Court will get in the way. The Supreme Court concluded by observing that the only point to consider was, whether the decision making agency took a well-informed decision or not. If the answer was 'yes', then there was no need to interfere.
Page 161 of 186
161 of 189
C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT
In our opinion, this decision is of no avail to the respondents as there cannot be any debate on the proposition of law explained by the Supreme Court, but in the present case, the recommendations of the EAC are not much in debate. although we have explained that the Union of India has failed to place any materials on record to satisfy the Court as to how the decision was taken and on what materials. The issue in the present petition is one of the deeming provision and the effect of deemed environmental clearance.
Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v.
T.N.Godavarman and others, (2011)7 SCC 338, has been relied on in support of the submissions that it is within the power of the authorities to grant ex post facto forest and environmental clearances. In the said case, the issue before the Supreme Court was, whether the ex post facto forest and environmental clearances dated 19th April 2010 and 26th April 2010 respectively stood vitiated or not by the alleged suppression by Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited (supra). It was argued before the Supreme Court against the Lafarge that it had obtained such ex post facto clearances on the basis of 'absence of forest' with full knowledge that the project site was located on forest land. In the peculiar facts of the case, the Supreme Court took the view that the parameters of intergenerational equity were satisfied and no reasonable person could say that the impugned decision to grant Stage-I forest clearance and revised environmental clearance stood vitiated on account of non-application of mind by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Court, in para 112, observed that although the area could be treated as forest, still it was a Page 162 of 186 162 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT hilly uneven undulating area largely covered by 'Karstified' limestone. The Court further observed that the area could be reforested as a part of the reclamation plan. It further stated that the indigenous and native people were satisfied with the credentials of M/s.Lafarge as the company was providing health care facilities, drinking water facilities, employment for local youth, construction of village roads, employment for school teachers, scholarship programme for children, etc. The Court also took notice of the fact that the issue of mining was thoroughly discussed with the Village Durbar by the members of the HPC who visited the site and that the community was in agreement to allow M/s. Lafarge to continue mining.
Thus, in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ex post facto forest and environmental clearances as it was satisfied with the materials on record that the appellant remained under a misconception that the area of mining was not forming a part of the forest area. We fail to appreciate how this decision would help the respondents because they are pleading deemed environmental clearance. In our view, a deemed environmental clearance cannot be equated with an ex post facto clearance.
Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and others v. Union of India and others, (2013)4 SCC 575, has been relied upon to fortify the submissions that it is for the administrative and statutory authorities empowered under the law to consider and grant environmental clearance and where no ground for interference with the decisions of the authorities on well recognized principles of judicial review is made out, the High Court should not interfere with the decisions of the authorities Page 163 of 186 163 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT to grant the environmental clearance or the consents on the ground that had the authorities made a proper environmental assessment of the plant, the adverse environmental effects of the industry could have been prevented.
In the said case, the environmental clearance for setting up the plant of the appellant Company was granted under Section 3(1) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification prevailing at the relevant point of time under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1986 and Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 1986 was EIA Notification dated 27th January 1994. In the said Notification, it was not laid down that a public hearing was a must for grant of environmental clearance when the case of the appellant for grant of such environmental clearance was under consideration. Thus, the environmental clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 16th January 1995 in accordance with the procedure laid down by the EIA Notification dated 27th January 1994 well before the issuance of the EIA Notification dated 10th April 1997 which provide for mandatory public hearing in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule IV.
In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court took the view that the High Court could not have allowed the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances on the ground that no public hearing was conducted before the grant of the environmental clearances.
This judgment is also of no avail to the respondents as the same was in the peculiar facts of that case. This judgment Page 164 of 186 164 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT does not deal, in any manner, with the issue of deemed environmental clearance or the effect of the deeming provision as laid down in Clause 8 of the EIA Notification, 2006.
Devilal Modi, Proprietor, M/s.Daluram Pannalal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and others, AIR 1965 SC 1150, was relied on to fortify the submission as regards the petition being hit by the doctrine of res judicata.
In that case, the issue before the Supreme Court was, whether the principle of constructive res judicata could be invoked against a writ petition filed by the appellant who was the proprietor of a firm under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant had been assessed to sales-tax for the year 1957-58 under the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1950. The appellant had challenged the validity of the said order of assessment by a writ petition filed by him in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and by special leave, the appellant came before the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, it was strenuously contended that where a citizen seeks for redress from the High Court by invoking its high prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would be inappropriate to invoke the principles of res judicata against him. It was argued that the appellant had been exposed to the risk of paying a large amount by way of sales-tax and penalty when the said liability had not been lawfully incurred by him and the impugned order was contrary to law. The Supreme Court held that there could be no doubt that the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens are a significant feature of our Constitution and the High Courts under Article 226 were bound to protect those Page 165 of 186 165 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT fundamental rights. The Court held that there could also be no doubt that if a case was made out for the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 in support of the citizens' fundamental rights, the High Court would not hesitate to exercise that jurisdiction. But, at the same time, the Supreme Court observed that the question as to whether a citizen should be allowed to challenge the validity of the same order by successive petitions under Article 226, cannot be answered merely in the light of the significance and importance of the citizens' fundamental rights. The Court observed that the general principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata was ultimately based on considerations of public policy. One important consideration of the public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by the appellate authorities.
On the facts of the case, the Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and dismissed the appeal, holding that the second writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court was barred by constructive res judicata.
This decision of the Supreme Court explaining the principles of constructive res judicata is of no avail to the respondents because we have exhaustively dealt with this issue of res judicata taking the view that the petition is not hit by the doctrine in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India, (2007)8 SCC 449, has been relied on to fortify the submissions that a Page 166 of 186 166 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would bear in mind the conduct of the party invoking such jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the facts of that case held that if the applicant fails to disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter.
This principle is a settled law and there cannot be any debate on this proposition of law. However, we have explained in detail that there has been no suppression of any material facts at the end of the petitioners and the petition does not deserve to be dismissed on such ground.
Chairman & MD, BPL Limited v. S.P.Gururaja and others, (2003)8 SCC 567, has been relied on to fortify the submissions that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the count of delay and laches. In the said case, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, a statutory authority constituted under the Karnata Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, acquired a vast tract of land in terms of the Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act for the purpose of allotment thereof to the entrepreneurs intending to setup industries in the State of Karnataka. The State Government, with a view to accelerate the economic development of the State, adopted a policy decision of dealing with the applications received from the entrepreneurs through one-window system. For achieving the said objective, a High-Level Committee was constituted under the State Government's orders and wherever an industrial project involved an investment beyond fifty crore, the decision to accord sanction/approval/clearance was to be Page 167 of 186 167 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT taken by it. The appellant of that case, with a view to set up industries, applied for allotment of 500 acres of land for its three projects. After considering the application, the Committee decided to allot 175 acres of land to the Company at Rs.92/- per sq.meter. The Karnataka Government, vide its order dated 16th May 1995, cleared three projects of the Company involving investment of Rs.663.56 crore. The respondents therein, describing themselves to be the social workers, filed a writ petition by way of a public interest litigation challenging the allotment of the said 175 acres of land to the Company, inter alia, on the grounds that : (a) the land to the other entrepreneurs was sold at the rate of Rs. 3,80,000=00 per acre whereas it was sold to the Company at the rate of Rs. 3,72,324=00 per acre; (b) the allotment was contrary to the regulations and, therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable; (c) the allotment was made without inviting applications and without notifying the availability of land to the general public; and (d) the exercise of power was mala fide and suffers from legal malice.
None of the contentions raised on behalf of the public interest litigants weighed with the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. But, on the materials on record, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the petition was not bona fide and, therefore, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Board and the State had committed no illegality which could have been a subject matter of judicial review. It observed that the High Court had committed a manifest error in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the delay had defeated equity. The allotment was made in the year 1995, whereas the writ application was filed after one year.
Page 168 of 186
168 of 189
C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT
According to the Supreme Court, delay of such a nature ought to have been considered by the High Court as of vital importance.
In our opinion, this decision is of no avail to the respondents as we have explained in details why the delay part should not come in the way of the petitioners, and most importantly, the Supreme Court was satisfied that there was no illegality committed in any manner by the appellant.
In the present case, we are of the firm view that the respondent nos.10 to 21 as lessees could not have put up any construction in the absence of environmental clearance, and the deemed environmental clearance would not absolve them from their obligation to adhere to the EIA Notification, 2006.
Netai Bag and others v. State of W.B. and others, (2000)8 SCC 262, has been relied on in support of the submissions with regard to delay and proper pleadings in the petition. In the said case, by notification dated 22nd August 1961 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, the Government of West Bengal acquired a piece of land for a certain project of the South-Eastern Railways. After completion of the project, the Railways surrendered the surplus land to the State Government. The West Bengal Livestock Processing Development Corporation was authorised to setup the Mourigram Abattoir Project on this land. However, despite their best efforts, the State Government could not be able to setup any project on the land which was a low-lying land situated in a semi-rural area. By that time, the State Government had established another abattoir project at Durgapur which, after commissioning, was Page 169 of 186 169 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT running into losses. No buyer could be available for Durgapur Project despite newspaper advertisements. On being invited by the State Government, a private party (Respondent No.5) therein agreed to take over the Durgapur Project and to setup an abattoir at Mourigram. The land at Durgapur and Mourigram was offered to respondent no.5 through long-term lease for 99 years on realisation of 100% market value as lease premium. Respondent no.5 made the payment accordingly. The transfer of the land at Mourigram to respondent no.5 was unsuccessfully challenged in a writ petition on several grounds by the appellants herein. Appellants 1 to 4 herein were the heirs of the erstwhile landowners while Appellants 5 and 6 claimed themselves to be promoters of the cause of vegetarianism. Before the Supreme Court, they challenged the action of the respondent solely on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14. They contended that the respondent State, without issuing any advertisement or resorting to the procedure of auction and tender, had secretly leased out the land at a throwaway price. Conceding that they had not made allegations of mala fides against any one of the respondents, the appellants contended that though not actual but legal mala fides were discernible from the pleadings of the parties and the record produced by them. On the other hand, the respondent State contended that the writ petition was not a bona fide action of the appellants, four of whom were the erstwhile owners interested only to get back the land legally acquired from them. That the petition suffered from unexplained delay and laches. That the lease was given to respondent no.5 upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances with the object of setting up an industry in the State of West Bengal which was likely to generate employment Page 170 of 186 170 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT to more than 300 persons and earn foreign exchange worth more than Rs.50 crore. That having failed in all its efforts for the purposes of transferring the Durgapur Project and establishment of Mourigram Project, the State Government wrote to some Bombay-based firms, reputed in the field, to salvage the two projects. Such positive response was received from some firms of which the respondent No.5 was found, on merits, to be preferable to others. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
In the aforesaid background, the Supreme Court held that whether any advertisement was issued or not, or whether public auction or floating of tenders should have been dispensed or not, are the matters which require pleadings in order to enable the State Government to explain or justify their action in the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and in the Supreme Court being in continuance of the original proceedings in the form of a writ petition cannot enlarge the scope of the inquiry at a belated stage. The Court held that in the absence of any specific allegation of mala fide against any of the respondents, it could not be said that mere violation of such an alleged statutory provision which safeguards, as spelt out by the Supreme Court, would render the State action to be arbitrary in all cases. The Court further held that the writ petition was filed at the instance of the erstwhile owners of the land whose main object appear to get the land back by any means, as admittedly, with the passage of time and development of the area, the value of the land had appreciated manifold.
Page 171 of 186
171 of 189
C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT
This decision, in our opinion, is in no manner helpful to the respondents because we have already explained why there is no delay and we have also dealt with the aspect of pleading exhaustively.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011)7 SCC 639, has been relied upon to make good four submissions, (i) delay, (ii) PIL jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously (iii) whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter and (iv) improper pleadings.
In the State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the construction of the dam had started in October 2002 and was completed in October 2006. The Supreme Court observed that no objections had ever been raised by NBA at any stage. The Court also noted that the Narmada Development Authority vide order dated 28th March 2007 had issued the necessary permission in favour of the National Hydrolic Development Corporation to raise the water level of the dam to 189 m. upon showing that the rehabilitation of the oustees of five villages adversely affected at 189 m. had already been completed. The Court also noted that the writ petition was filed praying for restraining the government from closing the sluice gates of the dam contending that the re-settlement and rehabilitation was not complete. The Court also noted that there was no explanation as to under what circumstances the Court had been approached at such a belated stage.
Page 172 of 186
172 of 189
C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT
On the aspect of pleadings, the Court took the view that there were no pleadings before the High Court on the basis of which the High Court could have entertained the petition. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances it was liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that the writ petition suffered for want of proper pleadings and material to substantiate the averments/ allegations contained therein.
The Court also observed that the PIL jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously in matters that primarily require the application of the democratic process. The Court observed that whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court was being abused the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter.
In our opinion, this decision is of no avail to the respondents because we have explained in details why there is no merit in the submission canvassed on behalf of the respondents as regards the delay and lack of pleadings. There cannot be any debate with the proposition of law explained by the Supreme Court that the Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a public interest litigation and the Court should also ensure that there is no oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. In our opinion, although a very heavy attack has been laid on the bona fide of the petition and the petitioners, yet this is not a petition which deserves to be thrown away by merely alleging mala fides or lack of bona fides.
We are of the opinion that in the matters of the present Page 173 of 186 173 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT nature which contains serious allegations touching the matters of great public importance relating to environment, for the purpose of locus standi, what is really relevant is the substance of the breaches of the Constitution complained of or any other law in force, and not the antecedents or the status of the person who conveys the information to the Court.
We are quite mindful that the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman (supra) has taken the view that however genuine a cause brought before the Court by a public interest litigant may be, the Court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person, who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bona fides and credentials are in doubt. At the same time, the Supreme Court also took the view that in a given exceptional case where bona fides of a public interest litigant are in doubt the Court may still examine the issue having regard to the serious nature of the public cause and likely public injury by appointing amicus curiae to assist the Court, but under no circumstances with the assistance of a doubtful public interest litigant.
In the present case, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the bona fides and credentials of the petitioners are in doubt.
T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and others, (2006) 13 SCC 689, has been relied upon in support of the submission canvassed on behalf of the respondents that assuming for the moment that there is a breach or violation of the notification 2006, then in such circumstances, demolition of the units operating as on today is not the only option. In the Page 174 of 186 174 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT case of T.N.Godavarman (supra) the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had proposed the development of international hotels complex on 315 hectares of land situated in the Vasant Kunj area after the said area was identified in the master plan for Delhi 2001 for urban use. The said area under the earlier master plan of 1962 was identified as a green area but later on there was a change of user to urban area under the master plan of 2001. The DDA planned to develop the said area for construction of hotels, convention centers etc. Before the Supreme Court IAs were filed relating to acceptability of the report given by the Expert Committee relating to the alleged violation of the environmental norms by the respondents. It was submitted before the Supreme Court that DDA had proceeded on a bona fide impression that all the requisite clearance had been obtained by it. It was also submitted that there was no question of it acting in a mala fide manner or irregular manner. The Court noted that the lands were allotted by DDA according to the notification dated 27 th January 1994, wherein for the first time a provision for obtaining environmental clearance by the Central Government before undertaking any new project listed in Schedule 1 to the Notification was issued. The notification did not relate to the new construction projects and as such did not apply to them was the stance of the respondents which was accepted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the auction was conducted by the DDA, thereafter the project was undertaken and huge investments had been made with the sanction of the building plans they had applied for. The Court also noted that the Expert Committee after public hearing had made the recommendations with certain stipulation. It clearly stated that the project could be recommended for Page 175 of 186 175 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT environmental clearance. The Supreme Court observed that the confusion arose because the DDA all throughout had given an impression to the parties participating in auction that all the requisite clearances had been obtained. If such parties had the slightest of the idea that such clearances were not obtained by the DDA, they would not have invested such huge sums of money. The Court observed that the stand that wherever the constructions have been made unauthorizedly demolition is the only option would not apply in the case before it, more particularly, when the parties unlike, where some private individuals or private limited companies or firms being allotted to them made contraventions, are corporate bodies and institutions and, therefore the question of there having indulged in any malpractice in getting the approval or sanction did not arise.
In our opinion, this judgment is of no avail to the respondents, more particularly, the unit holders because by relying on this decision the unit holders have made an attempt to convince the Court that it is the respondent no.8 MPSEZ who is responsible for all the confusion and violation of the terms of notification dated 14th September 2006. By relying on this decision, it is also sought to be argued that if they would have known that unless and until the environmental clearance is granted in favour of lessor i.e. the developer of the SEZ the lessees would have no right to put up a brick of a construction. In our opinion, this is a last ditch effort on the part of the unit holders to salvage the situation. It may not be out of place to state at this stage that they themselves are not clear as regards their stance. In one breath they submit that they had a right to proceed with the construction on the strength of their Page 176 of 186 176 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT own independent clearances obtained on the other they submit that the MPSEZ ought to have brought it to their notice. In any view of the matter, the Supreme Court decided IAs in the facts of that case and it has no applicability in the present case.
The Corporation of Kolkata v. Mulchand Agrawal, AIR 1956 SC 110, has been relied upon in support of the submission that when the legislature entrusts to an authority the power to pass an order in its discretion and order passed by that authority in exercise of that discretion is, in general, not liable to be interfered with by an appellate authority unless it can be shown to have been based on some mistake of fact or misapprehension of the principles applicable thereto. In the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Kolkata affirming the order of the Municipal Magistrate whereby he had dismissed an application filed by the appellant under Section 366 of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1923 for demolition of certain constructions on the ground that they had been erected without previous permission of the authorities and in contravention of the prescriptions laid down in the building rules. In the said case, the Supreme Court took the view that the building rules are enacted generally for the benefit of the public and where such rules are violated and proceedings are taken for an order for demolition of the building under Section 363 of the Act, what is to be decided is whether the breaches are of formal or trivial character, in which case the imposition of fine might meet the requirement of the case, or whether they are serious or likely to affect adversely the interests of the public, in such case it would be proper to pass an order of Page 177 of 186 177 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT demolition. It appears that it was argued on behalf of the Corporation that they had received a complaint from the public and since the public complained about unlawful construction, it was decided to demolish the building. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that whether there had been a complaint from the public or not would not as such be material for deciding the question, though if there was one, it would be a piece of evidence in deciding whether the interests of the public had suffered by reason of the breaches. The Court also took the view that nearly five years had elapsed since the building was completed and, therefore, in such circumstances, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation, the Court held that after lapse of such a time, an order of demolition was not called for in the interest of the public.
In our opinion, this decision is also of no avail to the respondents as the same was in the facts of that case and was a case of solitary building alleged to have been constructed in violation of the provisions of the Kolkata Municipality Act. The Supreme Court took the view that five years had elapsed and only because the public complained about the same by itself would not be a ground to demolish the building, if demolition was not the only resort available to the Corporation.
Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 2 SCC 670, has been relied upon to fortify the submission that when the words in the statute are clear and there there is no obscurity or any ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is also clearly conveyed then there is no scope for the Court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. In the said case, Page 178 of 186 178 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT the Supreme Court was considering the scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules 1974. The appellants of that case were holding the land in excess of the limit prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reform (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The surplus land was surrendered by the appellants which had cashew nut tree plantation. On the surrendered land the trees were fruit bearing trees. The dispute related to the amount payable in respect of the fruit bearing trees standing on the land which were surrendered by the appellant. The number of trees was not in dispute. The amount payable for the land vested in the government and the amounts had been paid. With regard to the amount payable for the fruit bearing trees a commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report regarding the number of fruit bearing trees and other trees standing on the land so surrendered. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Urban Ceiling, Hyderabad, directed the District Collector to issue necessary instructions not to fix the compensation payable in respect of the trees under the Rules till further orders. According to the authorities, the payment was to be made for one year only and not for 30 years so claimed by the appellant.
In the aforesaid background, the Supreme Court held that the elementary principle of interpreting or construing a statute is to ensure the mens or sententia legis of the legislature. The Court held that it was well settle principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a provision which is plain and unambiguous.
This decision is relied upon in support of the submission Page 179 of 186 179 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT that there is nothing in the notification of 2006 to even remotely suggest that if there is violation or breach of the conditions of the notification then there cannot be any deemed environmental clearance. In our opinion, although there cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law explained by the Supreme Court yet we have dealt with this aspect in details and have taken the view that plain reading of the notification itself makes it clear that it is only after the expiry of 45 days that it would be permissible to start with the project on the strength of deemed environmental clearance. However, if before the deemed environmental clearance comes into force the project is already undertaken then it could definitely be said to be in violation of the terms of notification and subsequent grant of the deemed environmental clearance would not save the situation.
A Division Bench of this High Court in the case of B.K.Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 2005 (Gujarat) 2003, has been relied upon in support of the submission that if the units are non-polluting units and if they have obtained individual requisite permissions and clearances then it would be open for the unit holders to start with their construction and operate their units. In the said case, a public interest litigation was filed bringing it to the notice of the Court, more particularly, by a declaration to the effect that the ex-post facto approval dated 27.10.2005 granted in favour of the industry was null and void and that the breach was comprising of blast furnace and pipe manufacturing facility was an integrated project forming part of the foundry. It was prayed to demolish the buildings/factory plant at the project site and to restore the land to its original condition and also to demolish the blast-
Page 180 of 186180 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT furnace. The main contention before the Court was that the construction work was carried out by the industry without obtaining the environmental clearance and thereby had violated the provisions of law. In the facts of that case, the Court posed a question as to whether the pipe manufacturing breach also required environmental clearance if the industry had obtained clearance for the blast furnace. The Court observed that indisputably the industry had applied for the environmental clearance from the Central Government only in support of the project of blast furnace and, therefore, the procedure contemplated for the grant of clearance under the notification of 1984 was followed in support of blast furnace covered under item 13 of the schedule to the said notification, and not in respect of any other item falling in that schedule including item 28 of "foundries". The Court also took the view that the public hearing was also in support of the blast furnace for which the application was made. The clearance of the project of blast furnace could not have been treated as a clearance granted for any breach other than of the blast furnace. In the facts of that case, the Court reached to the conclusion that the clearance granted by the authorities in support of the blast furnace could not have been treated as ex-post facto clearance and, therefore, there was no question of demolition of the construction made for the blast furnace project.
This decision is also of no avail to the respondent as the same was in the facts of that case and has no application to the issue with which we are concerned of deemed environmental clearance.
Page 181 of 186
181 of 189
C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT
We are of the view that none of the decisions relied upon on behalf of the respondents is helpful in any manner in fortifying the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Reference could be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Singh v/s. U.P.Public Service Commission and others, reported in (2003)11 SCC 584, in which the Supreme Court has explained as to how courts should place reliance on precedents. Observations made in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 are referred to hereinbelow:
"10. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions, but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed :
"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge."
"11. In Home Office v.  It will require qualification in new circumstances."Page 182 of 186
182 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2) ((1971) 1 WLR 1062) observed :
"One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell, L. J. as if it were an Act of Parliament."
In Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR
537) Lord Morris said :
"There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."
12. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
13. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus :
"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "Precedent would be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches, else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it."
Thus, having given our anxious thoughts and considerations to all the relevant aspects of the matter, more Page 183 of 186 183 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT particularly, the plea of deemed environmental clearance, we are afraid we are unable to accept such plea for the reasons recorded by us in details.
Since we have taken the view that the plea of deemed environmental clearance is not tenable in law, the position that would emerge as on today would be that the MPSEZ has no environmental clearance and the respondent nos.10 to 21 are operating their units in the absence of a valid environmental clearance from the Central Government. Such being the position, we reiterate the principle explained by us in our judgment dated 9th May 2012 rendered in Writ Petition (PIL) No.194 of 2011, which has attained finality and which has been accepted by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2621 of 2013, that according to the EIA Notification, 2006, in order to have such right of creation of infrastructural facilities over the land allotted, prior approval of the Central Government is necessary before making any construction, and without having acquired such right, the MPSEZ, the allottee from the Government, could not have conveyed such rights to its lessee. In other words, a lessee cannot have a better right then that of a lessor in the property. There cannot be any valid lease for enjoyment of a right in a property at the instance of MPSEZ before obtaining environmental clearance because such a right was not in existence in its favour, and consequently, not capable of being transferred to the lessee at the time of execution of the lease.
The above takes us to the question as to what should be the final conclusion in the matter.
We are of the opinion that the Central Government, in its Page 184 of 186 184 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT Ministry of Forests and Environment, should look into the matter closely and, more particularly , the aspects which we have highlighted in this judgment.
We are of the view that the Central Government should take a decision of its own as to whether environmental clearance should be granted in favour of the MPSEZ, and if yes, then on what terms and conditions.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that it is not possible for us to give a declaration as prayed for by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2621 of 2013, and accordingly, the same is rejected.
The Writ Petition (PIL) No.21 of 2013 is allowed to a certain extent. The Central Government is directed to take a decision of its own so far as the issue of grant of environmental clearance is concerned considering the position prevailing as on date and also the aspects which have been highlighted by us in this judgment, within a period of thirty days from the date of this judgment without fail.
While taking into consideration the issue of grant of environmental clearance, it would be open for the Central Government to even take into consideration the Sunita Narain Committee report as discussed in our judgment.
Till such appropriate decision is taken by the Central Government, there shall not be any further activity in the form of construction etc. including the functioning of the units in the area in question.
With the above observations and directions, we dispose Page 185 of 186 185 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT of the Writ Petition (PIL) No.21 of 2013. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main matter, the connected Civil Applications are also disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) After this judgment was pronounced, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in Writ Petition (PIL) 21 of 2013 have prayed for stay of operation of our judgment.
In view of what have been stated above, we find no reason to stay our judgment. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. However, certified copy of this judgment be given today, if applied for.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.)
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
MOIN
Page 186 of 186
186 of 189
C/WPPIL/21/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 21 of 2013
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 13/01/2014 in C/WPPIL/21/2013 ] ================================================================ GAJUBHA (GAJENDRASINH)BHIMAJI JADEJA & 3....Applicant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA THRO JOINT SECRETARY & 20....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4 MR PERCY KAVINA, SR.ADVOCATE with MR ABHISHEK MEHTA for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 12 MR IH SYED, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MR PS CHAMPANERI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 6 MR SHAMIK S BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 10 , 14 - 15 , 17 , 19 MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR.ADVOCATE with MS AMRITA M THAKORE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 11 , 16 , 21 MS AMRITA M THAKORE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No.18. MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 7 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 2 - 5 , 8 - 9 , 13 , 20 MR DUSHYANT DAVE, SR.ADVOCATE with MR SANDEEP SINGHI for SINGHI & CO, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 8 MR PARTH BHATT, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 10/02/2014 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) Page 1 of 3 187 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 ORDER This matter has been mentioned by Ms.Amrita Thakore, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.11,16,18 and 21, for correction of a typographical omission appearing in our order dated 13th January 2014, by which we dispose of a Public Interest Litigation along with a Special Civil Application by a common judgment.
Our attention has been drawn to the fact that while recording the submissions on behalf of the respondent nos.11,16, 18 and 21 under the heading 'VII', we have wrongly recorded the name of Mr.Mihir Thakore as the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of those respondents. Ms.Amrita Thakore submits that in fact she engaged Mr.Mihir Joshi as her senior for appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.11,16 and 21 and she alone appeared on behalf of the respondent no.18.
We, therefore, modify our aforesaid order to this extent that the name of Mr.Mihir Joshi should be substituted in place of Mr.Mihir Thakore under the heading 'VII' on page 40 of our judgment by deleting the respondent no.18 and Ms.Amrita Thakore should be shown to be the learned advocate alone on behalf of the respondent no.18.
Our order dated 13th January 2014 is modified only to the extent indicated above.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) Page 2 of 3 188 of 189 C/WPPIL/21/2013 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) MOIN Page 3 of 3 189 of 189


This year at an outdoor festival I took most of my own camp on a journey with 5-MeO-DIPT. I have used this most remarkable substance on many occasions, and only once have I experienced any ill effects. In that particular situation, I was forced to sit in a car while crusing around very curvy roads, and found myself carsick for a very painful hour. Nausea, but no vomiting. That was on a 10 mg. dose. (I weigh approximately 110 Kg.) Motion sickness seems to be an issue with 5-MeO-DIPT, which seems to be a good drug for either sitting or walking, but not a good fit with mechanical locomotion.
On the evening in question, I mixed 175 mg. (approx) into a container of liquid, producing approximately 25 7 mg. doses. I then fed it to 23 people in our camp (two particularly hungry individuals received double doses.) The dose was administered at approximately 9 PM.
The effects varied *enormously*. Certain people had very little feeling, while others got a full-on experience. This may be because the dosage was difficult to regulate - people probably received between 5 mg. - 10 mg. per dose. I doubt anyone got more than 10 mg, as I was careful to ensure that people drank only a small amount of the liquid.
Specifically:
Women seemed, by-and-large, to have more trouble tolerating 5-MeO-DIPT. This may simply be a function of body weight, but I am not sure this is the entire case. One woman became nauseous for a few hours, and another - weighing 130 lbs - threw up three times, but still reported that she was having one of the best psychedelic experiences of her life - better than her best LSD experience.
About 15% of the individuals went into a 'head space', which they reported as rather unsociable and not all that pleasant. They were over-thinking everything. As my own experience with 5-MeO-DIPT is that it is not a 'head trip', this was quite remarkable, yet, in a given population, it seems that certain individuals will react in this way. It could be set-and-setting (though that was pretty much the same for everyone involved) or it could be interactions with an individual's neurochemistry. This, other than the nausea, is the only caveat that I've encountered with the use of 5-MeO-DIPT.
By and large, most of the camp had a very satisfying psychedelic experience, with little body load, and I found a number of them very enthusiastically enjoying the 'cozy' feeling that seems to be the hallmark of the 5-MeO-DIPT experience. One man (who received a double dose of 15 mg.) reported the experience as 'incredibly yummy', as he cuddled with a few chosen friends.
Another person had her first psychedelic experience that evening, with 5-MeO-DIPT, and, as is the classic hallmark of psychedelic experiences, had great trouble answering basic questions like 'Who are you?' and 'What do you do?' because they seemed entirely irrelevant. She found the experience invaluable, and will be integrating her insights over the next months.
At that dosage, the peak lasted approximately 3 hours and return to baseline began after about 5 hours. Everyone - whether they'd gotten ill or had a great time - was feeling perfectly fine the next day, and I had many more requests for 5-MeO-DIPT!
- Amazing Dr. X
Experience Reports are the writings and opinions of the individual authors who submit them.
Some of the activities described are dangerous and/or illegal and none are recommended by Erowid.


Honzi
/
Bookmarks
/
Software
/Update Checklist
Ubuntu: wakeup.sh Script
Windows: Update & Security
Android:
Settings: Software Update
Play Store: Manage Apps & Devices
Steam: Client Updates and Downloads
Specific Games/Launchers:
Battle.net: launcher/wow updates
EVE Launcher: launcher/eve updates
Minecraft Launcher: launcher/minecraft updates
Path of Exile: updates
RuneScape: updates
Patch Notes:
EVE-Overviews.yaml
https://eveonline.com/news/t/patch-notes
GMod-Addons.lua
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/4000
MC-DataPacks
https://minecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Java_Edition_version_history
Path of Exile
https://pathofexile.com/forum/view-forum/patch-notes
SCPs
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com
WoW-Addons.lua
https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/content-update-notes
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Patch
WZ2100-AI.js
https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2100/blob/master/ChangeLog
Wine
https://winehq.org/news/
Wine: status updates


Levert you have a new Message
|
Inbox
{% if object_list %}
{% for direct_message in object_list reversed %}
{{ direct_message.sender }}
{{ direct_message.date_sent }}
{{ direct_message.content }}
{% if direct_message.sender == user %}
{% else %}
{% endif %}
{% endfor %}
{% else %}
You haven't sent or received any messages yet.
{% endif %}
{% endblock %}


Anders' Webpack 4 + babel7 + webpack-dev-server sandbox
Starting point
https://medium.com/oredi/webpack-with-babel-7-b61f7caa9565 https://github.com/seetd-knowledge/es6-webpack4-babel7
Added
webpack-dev-server


{% extends "base.html" %} {% block title %}{{ block.super }} | Beginner Programming & Design Books{% endblock %} {% block analytics %} analytics.page("Homepage"); {% endblock %} {% block bodyclass %}
{% endblock %} {% block content %}Coming November 7th, 2017
Design shortcuts and fundamentals aimed for programmers, developers, marketers, and non-designers. Learn just enough design to be dangerous.
Released May 4th, 2015
Want to build your first web app? Hello Web App walks you through building and launching a simple web app using Python and Django.
Released December 7th, 2015
Learn how to add more advanced features to your app, such as customer payments, user-uploaded images, proper database design, and more.


{% if page.url == "/" %} Saide Koolivand Salouki Projects Articles Contact Saide Koolivand Salouki Projects Articles Contact {% elsif page.url == "/contact/" %} Saide Koolivand Salouki Projects Articles Contact Saide Koolivand Salouki Projects Articles Contact {% else %} Saide Koolivand Salouki Projects Articles Contact Saide Koolivand Salouki Projects Articles Contact {% endif %}


SITAC OFFICE AREA: Total Carpet area of 7000 sq.ft LOCATION: Millennium Tower, Gurgaon, IN YEAR: 2013 STATUS: Completed SERVICES PROVIDED: Interior Design |Working Drawings |Site Co-ordination | Fabrication Co-ordination | Furniture Curation TAGS: Interiors
One of the fastest growing start-ups in the India, Zomato.com had to scale up to a bigger location in 2013. The space procured, an entire floor in Millennium Tower Gurgugram, was to be designed as its new sales and tech head office. There was a conscious effort to design spaces that could adapt to fast growing/Changing teams. Allowing for various types of seating like, private-enclosed booths/cabin , enclosed team-based working cabins as well as an open seating arrangement for individuals or for teams to work together. There were three different sizes of conference rooms and a café that would double up as a gathering space.


MsC Carlos Tarjano, Rio de Janeiro, 2020
This site is dedicated to illustrate the envelope extraction algorithm proposed in this paper (early version).
There is a Python module available from the Python Package Index (PyPI). It can be installed using the command pip install signal-envelope
A pure Python implementation of the algorithm, as well as the .wav files used to illustrate it are available at the Github repository dedicated to the algorithm.
Below are some visualizations of the envelopes obtained with the algorithm.
A minimal example of the use of the Python module can be seen in this Google Colab notebook.
Click the images to open interactive visualizations in other tabs. Click on the legends on those visualizations to hide / show the corresponding lines.
Loading times may be high; some visualizations illustrate 100000 individual samples.


Authentication key (API Key). Get your own by registering at https://secure.bytescout.com/users/sign_up.
Template URL
Template data { "number": "1234567", "date": "April 30, 2016", "from": "Acme Inc., City, Street 3rd , +1 888 123-456<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"to": "Food Delivery Inc., New York, Some Street, 42", "lines": [{ "title": "Setting up new web-site", "quantity": 3, "price": 50 }, { "title": "Configuring mail server and mailboxes", "quantity": 5, "price": 50 }] }


1) Enum
A helpful addition to the standard set of datatypes from JavaScript is the 'enum'. Like languages like C#, an enum is a way of giving more friendly names to sets of numeric values.
enum Color {Red, Green, Blue};
var c: Color = Color.Green;
By default, enums begin numbering their members starting at 0. You can change this by manually setting the value of one its members. For example, we can start the previous example at 1 instead of 0:
enum Color {Red = 1, Green, Blue};
var c: Color = Color.Green;
Or, even manually set all the values in the enum:
enum Color {Red = 1, Green = 2, Blue = 4};
var c: Color = Color.Green;
A handy feature of enums is that you can also go from a numeric value to the name of that value in the enum. For example, if we had the value 2 but weren't sure which that mapped to in the Color enum above, we could look up the corresponding name:
enum Color {Red = 1, Green, Blue};
var colorName: string = Color[2];
alert(colorName);
2) Any
We may need to describe the type of variables that we may not know when we are writing the application. These values may come from dynamic content, eg from the user or 3rd party library. In these cases, we want to opt-out of type-checking and let the values pass through compile-time checks. To do so, we label these with the 'any' type:
var notSure: any = 4;
notSure = "maybe a string instead";
notSure = false; // okay, definitely a boolean
The 'any' type is a powerful way to work with existing JavaScript, allowing you to gradually opt-in and opt-out of type-checking during compilation.
The 'any' type is also handy if you know some part of the type, but perhaps not all of it. For example, you may have an array but the array has a mix of different types:
var list:any[] = [1, true, "free"];
list[1] = 100;
3) Void
Perhaps the opposite in some ways to 'any' is 'void', the absence of having any type at all. You may commonly see this as the return type of functions that do not return a value:
function warnUser(): void {
alert("This is my warning message");
}
4.1) Optional Interface
interface SquareConfig { color?: string; width?: number; }
function createSquare(config: SquareConfig): {color: string; area: number}
{ var newSquare = {color: "white", area: 100};
if (config.color) { newSquare.color = config.color; }
if (config.width) { newSquare.area = config.width * config.width; }
return newSquare;
}
var mySquare = createSquare({color: "black"});
4.2) Function Type of Interface
interface SearchFunc { (source: string, subString: string): boolean; }
var mySearch: SearchFunc;
mySearch = function(src: string, sub: string)
{
var result = source.search(subString);
if (result == -1)
{ return false; }
else
{ return true; }
}
4.3) Array Type of Interface
interface StringArray { [index: number]: string; }
var myArray: StringArray; myArray = ["Bob", "Fred"];
There are two types of supported index types: string and number. It is possible to support both types of index, with the restriction that the type returned from the numeric index must be a subtype of the type returned from the string index.
 In this example, the property does not match the more general index, and the type-checker gives an error:
interface Dictionary { [index: string]: string; length: number; // error, the type of 'length' is not a subtype of the indexer }
4.4) Class Type of Interface
interface ClockInterface { currentTime: Date; setTime(d: Date); }
class Clock implements ClockInterface
{
currentTime: Date;
setTime(d: Date) { this.currentTime = d; }
constructor(h: number, m: number) { }
}
Interfaces describe the public side of the class, rather than both the public and private side. This prohibits you from using them to check that a class also has particular types for the private side of the class instance.
you would need to work with the 'static' side of the class directly. In this example, we work with the class directly:
interface ClockStatic { new (hour: number, minute: number); }
class Clock { currentTime: Date; constructor(h: number, m: number) { } }
var cs: ClockStatic = Clock;
var newClock = new cs(7, 30);
4.5) Extending Interface
An interface can extend multiple interfaces, creating a combination of all of the interfaces.
interface Shape { color: string; }
interface PenStroke { penWidth: number; }
interface Square extends Shape, PenStroke { sideLength: number; }
var square: Square;
square.color = "blue";
square.sideLength = 10;
square.penWidth = 5.0;
4.6) Hybrid Type of Interface
interface Counter { (start: number): string; interval: number; reset(): void; }
var c: Counter;
c(10);
c.reset();
c.interval = 5.0;
5.1) compatiable class
class Animal { private name:string; constructor(theName: string) { this.name = theName; } }
class Rhino extends Animal { constructor() { super("Rhino"); } }
class Employee { private name:string; constructor(theName: string) { this.name = theName; } }
var animal = new Animal("Goat");
var rhino = new Rhino();
var employee = new Employee("Bob");
animal = rhino;
animal = employee; //error: Animal and Employee are not compatible
5.2) Accessors of Class
var passcode = "secret passcode";
class Employee
{ private _fullName: string;
get fullName(): string { return this._fullName; }
set fullName(newName: string) { if (passcode && passcode == "secret passcode") { this._fullName = newName; } else { alert("Error: Unauthorized update of employee!"); } }
}
var employee = new Employee();
employee.fullName = "Bob Smith";
if (employee.fullName) { alert(employee.fullName); }
5.3) static
class Grid
{
static origin = {x: 0, y: 0};
calculateDistanceFromOrigin(point: {x: number; y: number;}) { var xDist = (point.x - Grid.origin.x); var yDist = (point.y - Grid.origin.y); return Math.sqrt(xDist * xDist + yDist * yDist) / this.scale; } // Grid, not this
constructor (public scale: number) { }
}
var grid1 = new Grid(1.0); // 1x scale
var grid2 = new Grid(5.0); // 5x scale
alert(grid1.calculateDistanceFromOrigin({x: 10, y: 10}));
alert(grid2.calculateDistanceFromOrigin({x: 10, y: 10}));
6.1) Function parameters should match
function buildName(firstName: string, lastName: string) { return firstName + " " + lastName; }
var result1 = buildName("Bob"); //error, too few parameters
var result2 = buildName("Bob", "Adams", "Sr."); //error, too many parameters
var result3 = buildName("Bob", "Adams"); //ah, just right
function buildName(firstName: string, lastName?: string) { if (lastName) return firstName + " " + lastName; else return firstName; }
var result1 = buildName("Bob"); //works correctly now
var result2 = buildName("Bob", "Adams", "Sr."); //error, too many parameters
var result3 = buildName("Bob", "Adams"); //ah, just right
function buildName(firstName: string, lastName = "Smith") { return firstName + " " + lastName; }
var result1 = buildName("Bob"); //works correctly now, also
var result2 = buildName("Bob", "Adams", "Sr."); //error, too many parameters
var result3 = buildName("Bob", "Adams"); //ah, just right
6.2) Rest Parameters of Function
function buildName(firstName: string, ...restOfName: string[]) { return firstName + " " + restOfName.join(" "); }
var employeeName = buildName("Joseph", "Samuel", "Lucas", "MacKinzie");
Rest parameters are treated as a boundless number of optional parameters. You may leave them off, or have as many as you want. The compiler will build an array of the arguments you pass to the function under the name given after the ellipsis (...), allowing you to use it in your function.
The ellipsis is also used in the type of the function with rest parameters:
function buildName(firstName: string, ...restOfName: string[]) { return firstName + " " + restOfName.join(" "); }
var buildNameFun: (fname: string, ...rest: string[])=>string = buildName;
6.3) Override of Function
var suits = ["hearts", "spades", "clubs", "diamonds"];
function pickCard(x: {suit: string; card: number; }[]): number;
function pickCard(x: number): {suit: string; card: number; };
function pickCard(x): any { // Check to see if we're working with an object/array // if so, they gave us the deck and we'll pick the card
if (typeof x == "object") { var pickedCard = Math.floor(Math.random() * x.length); return pickedCard; } // Otherwise just let them pick the card else
if (typeof x == "number") { var pickedSuit = Math.floor(x / 13); return { suit: suits[pickedSuit], card: x % 13 }; } }
var myDeck = [{ suit: "diamonds", card: 2 }, { suit: "spades", card: 10 }, { suit: "hearts", card: 4 }];
var pickedCard1 = myDeck[pickCard(myDeck)];
alert("card: " + pickedCard1.card + " of " + pickedCard1.suit);
var pickedCard2 = pickCard(15);
alert("card: " + pickedCard2.card + " of " + pickedCard2.suit);
7) Generics
function identity<T>(arg: T): T { return arg; }
var output = identity<string>("myString"); // type of output will be 'string'
var output = identity("myString"); // type of output will be 'string'
8) Mixin
// Disposable Mixin
class Disposable { isDisposed: boolean; dispose() { this.isDisposed = true; } }
// Activatable Mixin
class Activatable { isActive: boolean; activate() { this.isActive = true; } deactivate() { this.isActive = false; } }
class SmartObject implements Disposable, Activatable
{
constructor() { setInterval(() => console.log(this.isActive + " : " + this.isDisposed), 500); }
interact() { this.activate(); }
// Disposable
isDisposed: boolean = false;
dispose: () => void;
// Activatable
isActive: boolean = false;
activate: () => void;
deactivate: () => void;
}
applyMixins(SmartObject, [Disposable, Activatable]);
var smartObj = new SmartObject();
setTimeout(() => smartObj.interact(), 1000);
//////////////////////////////////////// // In your runtime library somewhere ////////////////////////////////////////
function applyMixins(derivedCtor: any, baseCtors: any[])
{
baseCtors.forEach(baseCtor => {
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(baseCtor.prototype).forEach(name => {
derivedCtor.prototype[name] = baseCtor.prototype[name];
})
});
}
9) Declaratoin Merge


Sapphire
Royal Crown
The Gems of Sapphire
History
Gallery
Nostalgia
Goodbyes
INSERT FANCY QUOTE
2021 © Triumfo & Viola | a graduation gift


FrameType SCROLLBAR
Mostly used as functional child. For a non binded one use SLIDER.
Supported FrameEvents
- FRAMEEVENT_CONTROL_CLICK (BlzFrameClick)
- FRAMEEVENT_MOUSE_ENTER
- FRAMEEVENT_MOUSE_LEAVE
- FRAMEEVENT_MOUSE_UP
- FRAMEEVENT_MOUSE_WHEEL
- FRAMEEVENT_SLIDER_VALUE_CHANGED


Active contributor to open source Apache Pinot, a real time OLAP datastore which powers high throughput low latency analytics applications at Uber, Stripe etc. Some notable contributions:
Consolidated several (deprecated) ruby microservices and ported the functionality into the new Elixir codebase. Specifically,
Conceptualised and designed social network for food which would simplify adding reviews and discovering food. Built the entire back-end from scratch with the following features:
Built an application to improve communication medium for visually impaired people by recognizing their hand gestures.
Worked as part of a team to build an e-Commerce Product Classifier.
Worked on an open-ended problem to reduce the commute time for a vehicle by using different real time traffic signals.
Relevant Courses : Foundations of Algorithms, Mobile Computing, Distributed Software Development, Database Management System Implementation, Software Integration and Engineering
Relevant Courses : Algorithms and Data Structures, Operating Systems, Database Management Systems, Intro to Machine Learning, Data Analytics, Java Programming
CGPA: 8.14
Socials


Max. 12 Letters/numbers, no spaces! Choose carefully, as your Username cannot be changed!
Username Available:
What is a Username?
Your username is your personal tag, across all of Function Island - the single piece of identity that is tied to your wallet address - your greatest online handle. Make it a good one!
Registering an Username costs 10 TRX - a small fee to prevent namesquatting, which is collected by the Core Developer Team for maintenance of the platform.


To get critical information about the behavior of our visitors, we use Simple Analytics. This analytics software gives us insight about our visitors only in general, but not about individuals per say, as it does not track visitors and does not store any personal identifiable information. Go to their documentation to find out what Simple Analytics collects (and most importantly what they don't).


| Top |
The Quartz surface is used to render cairo graphics targeting the Apple OS X Quartz rendering system.
cairo_surface_t * cairo_quartz_surface_create (cairo_format_t format
,unsigned int width
,unsigned int height
);
Creates a Quartz surface backed by a CGBitmap. The surface is created using the Device RGB (or Device Gray, for A8) color space. All Cairo operations, including those that require software rendering, will succeed on this surface.
format |
format of pixels in the surface to create |
|
width |
width of the surface, in pixels |
|
height |
height of the surface, in pixels |
Since 1.6
cairo_surface_t * cairo_quartz_surface_create_for_cg_context (CGContextRef cgContext
,unsigned int width
,unsigned int height
);
Creates a Quartz surface that wraps the given CGContext. The CGContext is assumed to be in the standard Cairo coordinate space (that is, with the origin at the upper left and the Y axis increasing downward). If the CGContext is in the Quartz coordinate space (with the origin at the bottom left), then it should be flipped before this function is called. The flip can be accomplished using a translate and a scale; for example:
CGContextTranslateCTM (cgContext, 0.0, height); CGContextScaleCTM (cgContext, 1.0, -1.0);
All Cairo operations are implemented in terms of Quartz operations, as long as Quartz-compatible elements are used (such as Quartz fonts).
cgContext |
the existing CGContext for which to create the surface |
|
width |
width of the surface, in pixels |
|
height |
height of the surface, in pixels |
Since 1.6
CGContextRef
cairo_quartz_surface_get_cg_context (cairo_surface_t *surface
);
Returns the CGContextRef that the given Quartz surface is backed by.
A call to cairo_surface_flush()
is required before using the
CGContextRef to ensure that all pending drawing operations are
finished and to restore any temporary modification cairo has made
to its state. A call to cairo_surface_mark_dirty()
is required
after the state or the content of the CGContextRef has been
modified.
Since 1.6


We have the state of the art furniture for our customers. We love it when our customers are comfortable while taking their meals and we have ensured that they are. There is also good lighting where you can take photos as you please.
We have the number one customer service in the entire block. We ensure all your needs are attended to in a polite and proffesional way.
In case you don't want to walk all the way to The Corner, we can get the order to you. We have a reliable means of transport at a very affordable price.
We also have a spacious parking lot that is very elegant, quiet and peaceful.
My husband and I, vacationing in the area, had lunch Fri 17th at The Corner and we were both absolutely pleased with everything at your place. Your wait staff was so pleasant and helpfull. Your menu is class. Do not change a thing!! The kitchen, the staff, the menu, the pizza(I couldn’t eat another bite so I took a Pepperoni pizza to go) are all the finest. I will recommend to everyone The Corner. Don’t change a thing! You are spot on!
We were at The Corner a few weeks ago with some clients. I am finally getting back to tell you that we had a wonderful evening! The food, the service, the host, EVERYTHING was perfect! Thank you again for making TFG such a special place to be. We hope to see you again soon. Keep up the good work !
Thank you for dinner last night. It was amazing!! I have to say it’s the best meal I have had in quite some time. You will definitely be seeing more of me eating at your establishment. My husband was very impressed and we can’t wait for our parents to come visit so that we can share our new favorite place with them.


{% extends 'email_base.html' %} {% load i18n %} {% block body %}
{% trans 'Hi there' %},
{% url 'studygroups_facilitator_signup' as facilitator_signup_url %}{% blocktrans with organizer_name=organizer.first_name %}{{organizer_name}} invited you to join their team on learningcircles.p2pu.org. You first have to sign up at {{DOMAIN}}{{facilitator_signup_url}} and then accept the invitation.{% endblocktrans %}
{% trans 'Cheers' %}
P2PU
{% endblock %}