nips nips2013 nips2013-269 nips2013-269-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Samory Kpotufe, Francesco Orabona
Abstract: We consider the problem of maintaining the data-structures of a partition-based regression procedure in a setting where the training data arrives sequentially over time. We prove that it is possible to maintain such a structure in time O (log n) at ˜ any time step n while achieving a nearly-optimal regression rate of O n−2/(2+d) in terms of the unknown metric dimension d. Finally we prove a new regression lower-bound which is independent of a given data size, and hence is more appropriate for the streaming setting. 1
[1] Y. Ben-Haim and E. Tom-Tov. A streaming parallel decision tree algorithm. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:849–872, 2010.
[2] A. Beygelzimer, S. Kakade, and J. Langford. Cover trees for nearest neighbors. ICML, 2006.
[3] N. Cesa-Bianchi and G. Lugosi. Prediction, Learning, and Games. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2006.
[4] K. Clarkson. Nearest-neighbor searching and metric space dimensions. Nearest-Neighbor Methods for Learning and Vision: Theory and Practice, 2005.
[5] P. Domingos and G. Hulten. Mining high-speed data streams. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 71–80, 2000.
[6] H. Gu and J. Lafferty. Sequential nonparametric regression. ICML, 2012.
[7] L. Gyorﬁ, M. Kohler, A. Krzyzak, and H. Walk. A Distribution Free Theory of Nonparametric Regression. Springer, New York, NY, 2002.
[8] A. Kalai and S. Vempala. Efﬁcient algorithms for universal portfolios. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:423–440, 2002.
[9] S. Kpotufe. k-NN Regression Adapts to Local Intrinsic Dimension. NIPS, 2011.
[10] R. Krauthgamer and J. R. Lee. Navigating nets: simple algorithms for proximity search. In Proceedings of the ﬁfteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, SODA ’04, pages 798–807, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2004. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
[11] B. Pfahringer, G. Holmes, and R. Kirkby. Handling numeric attributes in hoeffding trees. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: Proceedings of the 12th Paciﬁc-Asia Conference (PAKDD), volume 5012, pages 296–307. Springer, 2008.
[12] S. Schaal and C. Atkeson. Robot Juggling: An Implementation of Memory-based Learning. Control Systems Magazine, IEEE, 1994.
[13] C. J. Stone. Optimal rates of convergence for non-parametric estimators. Ann. Statist., 8:1348– 1360, 1980.
[14] C. J. Stone. Optimal global rates of convergence for non-parametric estimators. Ann. Statist., 10:1340–1353, 1982.
[15] M. A. Taddy, R. B. Gramacy, and N. G. Polson. Dynamic trees for learning and design. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493), 2011.
[16] S. Vijayakumar and S. Schaal. Locally weighted projection regression: An O(n) algorithm for incremental real time learning in high dimensional space. In in Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1079–1086, 2000. 9


SA Loans
SA Loans Online Information System
Home
Admin
branches
Admin
Branch Employees
Branch Income
Branch Costs
Branch Details
Branch Details
Branch Name
Branch Code
Branch Address
{{ vstrBranchAddress }}
Branch Contact
Branch Email
Manager Name
Manager Contact
Manager Email
Save
Delete


The is my experience in the first Worldwide Walk organized by the INC that was held in 2014 and was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest charity walk. By the leadership of our church organization through communication causing the joint effort of INC members across the globe. Overall, by communication we can help, aid and unite humanity for the greater good.


17 Photos Proving That Men’s Ingenuity Is Just Unlimited
Men always have it simple and their simple logic is sometimes accompanied by great humor. This is how they joke with their wives when they are trying to be supportive, burn their food, and take sad photos at someone else’s wedding party.
Even though not every situation is funny, every man from this article tried to remain optimistic and we at Bright Side are amazed by their abilities.
“Sometimes I text my wife the motivational quotes from her tampons when she has her period, to try and cheer her up.”
He knew what to say.
This guy put a tent over his car to be able to make repairs to it even during a blizzard.
Every married man feels for this guy.
To get you through those hard parenting days...
Every man is still a bit childish.
“The way my dad puts things away in the fridge. This is a piece of steak...”
Everyone must have had this happen in their lives at least once.
“My 10-year-old brother called me to tell me he had a girlfriend and then sent me this.”
“2 months ago I went to a wedding party. I was looking through the photos and I just had to do this...”
So, this is where all the money goes!
“Tonight was foreign culture night at my house, so I decided to cook a traditional dish from Pompeii.”
“My wife asked me, ’Which color do you like best?’”
“My wife knitted her first hat yesterday, but it turned out way too small. It did, however, fit the cat perfectly...”
“My parents were given a robot vacuum. They named it Max. And my father did this.”
Maybe they just wanted a new species.
“Vandals! But I know how to adapt.”
What funny things have the men in your life done?
Preview photo credit WaspRider / Pikabu


Coffee-time confection made into the shape of a salmon that has just a hint of fishy goodness. We are an international cookies brand, allocated in different cities around the world and you can order what ever you want in just one click using our upcoming apps.(Check our Sales Page)


{% extends "base.html" %} {% block head %} {% endblock %} {% block content %} {% if filtered_columns %}
The following metadata columns have been omitted because they didn't contain numeric data, or they consisted only of missing data: {{ filtered_columns }}
| Test | |
|---|---|
| Test statistic | |
| P-value | |
| Sample size |


Process, journal or discuss the themes of this article - here's a few questions to get the ball rolling...


Create automation scripts¶
This document briefly details how user/developers can create their own FabSim3 automations.
Overview¶
- Automation scripts allow user/developers to create their own FabSim3 functionalities. They are usually created and modified within individual plugins.
- Base automation scripts reside within the
base/
subdirectory. These should normally not be modified, but they can serve as examples to create your own functionalities, or as building blocks to create complex functions. - Plugin-specific automation scripts reside within the base directory of the respective plugin. The script that will be invoked by default is
<plugin_name>.py
. For larger plugins, various other Python scripts can of course be imported in this main script.
How to write automation functions¶
- All automation functions are written using Python 3.
- On top of that, they rely on shorthand functionalities as provided by Fabric3. See documentation for more information.
- Commands to be run on the local client side are called using
local()
. - Commands to be run remotely are called using
run()
.
Examples¶
To access a remote resource and scan available modules for a specific name one could write:
@task
def probe(label="undefined"):
""" Scans a remote site for the presence of certain software. """
return run("module avail 2>&1 | grep %s" % label)
This task can then be invoked on the archer supercomputer to search for LAMMPS modules by using
fab archer probe:label=lammps
To run an arbitrary bash script locally one could write:
@task
def blackbox(script='test.sh', args=''):
""" Black-box script execution. """
for p in env.local_blackbox_path:
script_file_path = os.path.join(p, script)
if os.path.exists(os.path.dirname(script_file_path)):
local("%s %s" % (script_file_path, args))
return
Note
This function first navigates to the blackbox/
subdirectory in the local Fabsim3 installation, and subsequently executes the $script
in that directory. Also, the freehand use of args
give a sequence of parameters etc.
To run LAMMPS on a remote host (part of FabMD) one could write:
@task
def lammps(config,**args):
"""Submit a LAMMPS job to the remote queue.
The job results will be stored with a name pattern as defined in the environment,
e.g. cylinder-abcd1234-legion-256
config : config directory to use to define geometry, e.g. config=cylinder
Keyword arguments:
cores : number of compute cores to request
images : number of images to take
steering : steering session i.d.
wall_time : wall-time job limit
memory : memory per node
"""
update_environment(args)
with_config(config)
execute(put_configs,config)
job(dict(script='lammps', wall_time='0:15:0', memory='2G'),args)
- The combination of
**args
in the declaration withupdate_environment(args)
at the start of the function allows users to specify arbitrary arguments on the command line, and to have those automatically loaded in to the FabSim3 environment. with_config()
loads in input files into FabSim3.execute(put_configs,config)
copies the configuration information to the right directory at the remote resource.- On the last line, LAMMPS is run remotely (shown by script=’lammps’), and the values of
args
are passed on to that function as well, overriding the default wall_time and memory specification on that line if the user has specified those variables explicitly already.
Accessing FabSim commands from Python scripts¶
To launch FabSim3 commands from Python scripts, we have established a basic Python API. This file can be found here.
We recommend using this API rather than os.system()
or subprocess()
directly, as it will allow us to fix any emerging bugs in future versions for you.
Create Config Directories¶
- Configuration information is stored in subdirectories of either config or plugins/<module_name>/configs (to be implemented).
- One directory should be created for each individual simulation problem type.
- Typically, input file names are standardized using default names, to reduce the number of user-specified arguments on the command line (e.g., config.xml for HemeLB).
- Examples for LAMMPS are provided in the base installation of FabSim3.
FabSim variables¶
- FabSim variables are represented in three different ways:
in
.yml
files as a key-value pair, e.g.:number_of_cores: 16
within the FabSim Python environment as a member of the env dictionary, e.g.:
env.number_of_cores = 16 or update_environment({"number_of_cores":16})
within templates as a
$
denominated variable, which is to be substituted. For example:
How variables are obtained or introduced:¶
Variable are obtained from the following sources:
- Parsed from
.yml
files such asmachines.yml
andmachines_user.yml
, which are loaded on startup.- Explicitly written/created in the Python code environment. This should be implemented such that the third method will still override this method.
- Overridden or introduced using command-line arguments.
How variables are applied:¶
- Directly, by reading values from
env.<variable_name>
in the Python code base. - Through template substitution, where instances of
$<variable_name>
are replaced with<variable_value>
in the substitution output.
Example of applying a variable¶
@task def test_sim(config,**args): """ Submit a my_sim job to the remote queue. """ env.test_var = 300.0 # test variable is set to a default value in the FabSim environment. # This will override any defaults set in other parts of FabSim (e.g. machines_user.yml) update_environment(args) # If a value for test_var is given as a command-line argument, # then the default set above will be overridden. env.sim_args = "-test-var=%s" % (env.test_var) # Optional example how to use your created variable # to create some parameter syntax for your job. test_sim(config, **args) # start a fictitious job, with the variable present in your FabSim environment.
Creating Job Submission Templates¶
- Job submission templates are used to convert FabSim environmental information to batch job scripts which can be submitted to remote resource schedulers.
- Domain-independent templates are stored in
deploy/templates
, while domain-specific templates should be stored indeploy/<module_name>/templates
.- Templates consist of two parts, Header templates which are scheduler-specific, and job execution templates which are code-specific.
- Normally, one new template needs to be added when adding a new machine definition to FabSim3, regardless of the number of codes used on that machine.
- Also one new template needs to be added for each new code definition to FabSim3, regardless of the number of machines supported.
Header templates¶
Header templates are usually created as follows:
- Take a batch script header example from the user guide of the respective resource.
- Any existing variable denoted with $name should normally be replaced with
$$name
(to prevent substitution with FabSim variables).- Any hard-coded value should be replaced with a FabSim environment variable name, prefixed with a
$
symbol.- One then needs to ensure that the respective variables are properly created in FabSim3, e.g. by adding default definitions for them to
machines.yml
if necessary.
Example¶
The example below is the batch header template for the SuperMUC supercomputer.
#!/bin/bash ## ## Copyright (C) University College London, 2007-2012, all rights reserved. ## ## This file is part of HemeLB and is CONFIDENTIAL. You may not work ## with, install, use, duplicate, modify, redistribute or share this ## file, or any part thereof, other than as allowed by any agreement ## specifically made by you with University College London. ### ## optional: energy policy tags ## # DO NOT USE environment = COPY_ALL #@ job_name = $job_name_template_sh #@ job_type = $job_type #@ output = job$$(jobid).out #@ error = job$$(jobid).err #@ class = $job_class #@ tasks_per_node = $corespernode #@ island_count = $island_count #@ node = $nodes #@ wall_clock_limit = $wall_time #@ network.MPI = sn_all,shared,us #@ notification = never #@ initialdir = . #@ node_usage = shared #@ queue # setup modules . /etc/profile . /etc/profile.d/modules.sh
- Here,
#@ output = job$$(jobid).out
will become#@ output = job$(jobid).out
after templating, preserving the supercomputer-specific environment variable.- However,
#@ node = $nodes
will for example become#@ node = 16
if the env.nodes value within FabSim3 equals to16
.- Note also that the (MPI) execution command should not reside in this template, as this is supplied separately.
Job execution templates¶
Job execution templates are typically straightforward in their structure, and usually contain just a few preparation commands and a generic MPI job execution formulation.
Here is an example job execution template for the LAMMPS code:
cd $job_results # change directory to the FabSim results dir. Featured in almost all templates. $run_prefix # run preparatory commands, as specified within FabSim. cp -r $job_config_path/* . # Copy over initial conditions to results directory. Featured in almost all templates. /usr/bin/env > env.log # Store local supercomputer environment variables. Featured in almost all templates. $run_command $lammps_exec $lammps_args < $lammps_input > log.lammps # Generically formulated LAMMPS execution command.
The last command will likely depend on how parameters are passed to the target code.
$run_command
will be substituted by a job execution command such asmpirun
oraprun
.- other variables contain code/domain-specific information such as input and output destinations, relevant flags or the location of the executable.


pimco
Businessmodel of PIMCO
Customer Segments
PIMCO serves a range of customers, including both individuals, commercial entities and public bodies, that wish to grow and manage their finances through various investment vehicles. These customers include:
- Individuals, including retirement savers and high-net-worth clients;
- Educational institutions, including universities and schools;
- Central banks and government agencies, as well as other public organisations;
- Corporate and commercial entities, providing corporate pension schemes across multiple business sectors;
- Foundations and non-profits, across multiple sectors; and
- Financial intermediaries, including independent financial advisors. PIMCO is headquartered in the US and principally serves a domestic client base. It, however, maintains a presence across Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Canada, in order for it to serve international customers directly.
Value Propositions
PIMCO provides value to its customers in the following ways:
- Its broad portfolio of investment funds and products, with the Company providing investment opportunities to its clients across a range of fund types, providing a range of options that suit the requirements and circumstances of a broad spectrum of clients;
- Its technical expertise and market insight, with the Company employing expert, specialist staff across its operating divisions, and with the Company recognised as a thought leader within the investment industry;
- Its accessibility and international reach, with the Company serving clients across the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific, through a network of sales and distribution channels; and
- Its track record as a reliable investment manager, with the Company having a positive reputation within industry, attracting a number of clients across the commercial and government sectors. ### Channels
PIMCO operates a website at www.pimco.com, through which it provides information on its products, funds, services and corporate activities. The website also provides customers access to the Company’s online service, which allows clients to access a range of services and information, including transaction histories. Much of this functionality is also available through PIMCO’s mobile app, which appears to be available only on iOS platforms.
PIMCO also operates an in-house team of investment professionals and support staff, which provide services directly to clients, either over the phone or in-person, through the Company’s domestic and international network of 13 offices, including in Newport Beach, New York, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, Munich, London, Amsterdam, Zurich, Milan, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sydney.
Customer Relationships
PIMCO provides a range of services to its customers on a self-service basis through its online platform, as well as its mobile application. These channels enable customers to perform a number of functions, including accessing account information, tracking fund performance, and receiving electronic statements, without interacting directly with members of the PIMCO team.
PIMCO provides a range of services to its clients directly, through its investment professionals, who work closely with clients in order to provide a service tailored to their individual needs and budgets, The Company aims to establish longstanding relationships with its customers, particularly with its large commercial and institutional clients.
PIMCO also provides a broad range of online resources to its customers via its Insights portal, which includes the PIMCO blog, market commentary, and investment strategy reports. It also provides a number of FAQs, which help clients to effectively utilise the Company’s services.
Clients are able to contact PIMCO directly over the phone or by mail, in order to receive personalised assistance. Alternatively, clients are able to interact directly with PIMCO through its social media accounts, including with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn.
Key Activities
PIMCO is a privately-owned hedge fund sponsor. The Company manages client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios, launching and managing equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual funds for its clients.
The firm invests in public equity, fixed income, and alternative markets worldwide, with a focus on dividend-paying and value stocks, corporate bonds, treasury bills, asset-backed securities, municipal securities, and mortgage backed securities.
PIMCO utilises in-house quantitative analysis research in the creation of its portfolio. It has offices across the US and Canada, Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Key Partners
PIMCO has a number of partners, with which it works to support and supplement its own product and service offerings. These partners include:
- Joint Venture Partners, comprising a range of companies, principally financial service providers, with which the Company provides joint services through a mutually-owned vehicles;
- External Service Providers, comprising a range of third-party vendors and service providers, to which the Company outsources a range of technology, processing, servicing, and support functions; and
- Strategic and Alliance Partners, comprising companies with which the Company shares resources and tools, and collaborates on various joint projects. In 2015 PIMCO extended its partnership with Research Affiliates, developing a range of equity strategies as part of an already longstanding equity management relationship. The Company also has a 50-50 joint venture, named Central Park Limited Partnership, with Green REIT, which owns a portfolio of commercial properties.
Key Resources
PIMCO’s key resources are its portfolio of funds and joint-venture companies, its IT infrastructure and mobile platform, its partnerships, its network of offices, its sales and distribution channels, and its personnel.
The Company’s industry expertise, including its specialist investment professionals and research personnel, is of particular importance, with the Company’s ability to identify and manage effective investment portfolios salient to the Company’s successful operations.
Cost Structure
PIMCO incurs costs in relation to the operation of its research activities, the development and maintenance of its IT infrastructure – including its mobile platform, the management of its partnerships, the operation of its sales and market development channels, the payment of professional fees and the contracting of third-party service providers, and the retention of its personnel.
Revenue Streams
PIMCO generates revenue through the provision of various investment management services, and the collection of related fees and commissions.
PIMCO is not a publicly-listed company, and as such is not obliged to publish its financial accounts. Reports, however, suggest that the Company recorded €1.14 billion in annual revenue in 2015, a decrease of 3.1% on the revenue recorded by the Company for 2014. The Company’s revenue is expected to grow in 2016, as a result of the Company broadening its mix of products.


| Sr. No: | Name | Date | Attendance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bhavy | 11 July 2021 | |
| 2 | Bhavy | 12 July 2021 | |
| 3 | Bhavy | 13 July 2021 | |
| 4 | Bhavy | 14 July 2021 | |
| 5 | Bhavy | 15 July 2021 | |
| 6 | Bhavy | 16 July 2021 | |
| 7 | Bhavy | 17 July 2021 | |
| 8 | Bhavy | 18 July 2021 | |
| 9 | Bhavy | 19 July 2021 | |
| 10 | Bhavy | 20 July 2021 | |
| 11 | Bhavy | 21 July 2021 | |
| 12 | Bhavy | 22 July 2021 | |
| 13 | Bhavy | 23 July 2021 | |
| 14 | Bhavy | 24 July 2021 | |
| 15 | Bhavy | 25 July 2021 | |
| 16 | Bhavy | 26 July 2021 | |
| 17 | Bhavy | 27 July 2021 | |
| 18 | Bhavy | 28 July 2021 | |
| 19 | Bhavy | 29 July 2021 | |
| 20 | Bhavy | 30 July 2021 |


Tags: nan
Style: Social Realism
Artist: Rivera Diego
Title: La Era (The Threshing Floor) 1904 (oil on canvas)
Year: 1904
Genre: landscape
Categories: barn (82.3%); jigsaw_puzzle (7.5%); hay (3.3%); chainlink_fence (1.9%); doormat (0.7%)
<< previous image next image >>


Ranges
Use .c-range
components to
style form range inputs. Child component classes are shown below.
Since WebKit browsers have no supporting pseudo-element for
the lower range, the
.c-range__input
child contains corresponding
background
CSS whose size should be manipulated via JavaScript whenever the range
"thumb" is moved. Similarly, the track background for dual-thumb sliders
must be maniuplated as each thumb is dragged. See the supporting page JS
for details.
Standard
input type="range"
fields are demonstrated below.
Use the following controls to manipulate the range sliders displayed below.
Hint text may also appear below the range input.
The unmodified
.c-range
occupies 100% of the width of its container. The following fields are
contained by a 400px wrapper.
Modifiers
Use the
.c-range--inline
class modifier to layout range controls inline.
States
Values
Demonstrate range controls with various
max
,
min
,
step
,
and
value
attribute values.


Nav
Search
Keywords
Location
Payscale
¥7,500-¥9,999
¥10,000-¥14,999
¥15,000-¥19,999
¥20,000-¥25,000
¥25,000-¥30,000
Grade Level
Kindergarten
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
College
School Ownership
Public
Private
School Curriculum
Public
Private
Submit
Reset


Dashboard
Logout
Facebook
{{facebook}}
Twitter
{{twitter}}
Favourite Food
Pizza
Favourite Exercises
Running
Chances of Diabetes
{{diabetes_per}}%
Approx. Medical Expense / year
${{ medical_cost }}
Avg Caloric Consumption in U.S.A. per person from 2010 - 2017


128. However, in this case at the time when the Petitioner applied for and obtained the EIA clearance, the construction of the building was complete. There was no show cause notice issued to it by the DPCC from the time it commenced construction sometime in March 2004 till it completed its construction in December 2005. Clearly, the DPCC woke up very late. The first show cause notice was issued sometime in August 2007. Even then the show cause notice was issued to M/s. G.S. Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. who were only contractors whereas the whole shopping complex was built by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, for the reasons already discussed the course open to the DPCC was to invoke Section 25(5) of the Water Act to require the Petitioner to rectify any deficiency that must have been noticed on the inspection of the premises. Even under the Air Act, there is no question of now requiring the Petitioner to apply for „prior consent to operate‟ since the construction of the building is already complete.
129. There are enough provisions in both the Air Act and the Water Act to deal with a situation where without obtaining prior consent a building been constructed and has become functional. As already pointed out the action under Section 31A of the Air Act and Section 33A of the Water W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 79 of 122 Act will have to be exercised reasonably after complying with the rules envisaged under both these Acts. The exercise should not be a mechanical one. Since this is a building which has been granted EIA clearance, the DPCC should find out first whether there are other aspects, not covered by the EIA clearance that require to be rectified by the Petitioner both under the Water as well as the Air Act. In other words, the exercise to be undertaken by the DPCC ought not to be repetitive of the exercise undertaken by the MoEF while granting EIA clearance.
130. Thirdly, there is no legal basis for the DPCC to impose penalty and environmental damages on the Petitioner or require it to furnish a bank guarantee. For the reasons already discussed, such orders are plainly outside the powers of the DPCC under the Water Act and the Air Act and cannot be sustained in law.
131. The DPCC has relied upon an order dated 14th October 2003 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 657 of 1995 (Research Foundation for Science Technology and National Resource Policy v. Union of India) where in para 70.6 an observation was made to the following effect:
"MoEF should consider making a provision for bank guarantee being given by importer while seeking permission to import used oil, furnace oil and zinc wastes to be released only on the imported consignment being found to be in conformity with the declared item of import. After taking a decision, affidavit shall be filed within four weeks".W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 80 of 122
132. The above observation of the Supreme Court does not by any means imply that an SPCB like the DPCC can begin to levy penalties and fines and environmental damages or require bank guarantees to be furnished in exercise of its powers under Section 31A of the Air Act and Section 33A of the Water Act. The above contention is accordingly rejected.
133. Reliance has been placed by the DPCC on an order dated 17 th October 2006 passed by the Supreme Court in the Vasant Kunj Ridge matters. The above order was passed in an application filed seeking acceptance of the report of the Expert Committee relating to violation of environmental norms by certain parties who had constructed shopping malls or hotel complexes in the Vasant Kunj Ridge area. After referring to the earlier orders dated 19th August 1997 and 8th March 2004, the Supreme Court observed "that the parties were not aware that they had to take EIA clearance in terms of the amended EIA Notification dated 7 th July 2004. It was then observed as under:
"The confusion arose because DDA all through all through gave an impression to the parties participating in auction that all requisite clearances had been obtained. Had such parties inkling of an idea that such clearances were not obtained by DDA, they would not have invested such huge sums of money. The stand that wherever constructions have been made unauthorisedly demolition is the only option cannot apply to the present cases, more particularly, when they unlike, where some private individuals or private limited companies or firms being allotted to have made contraventions, are corporate bodies and institutions and the question of their having indulged in any malpractices in getting the W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 81 of 122 approval or sanction does not arise. Some of the allottees are the National Book Trust, School of Planning or Architecture, Shri Ram Vithala Sikha Seva Samiti, International Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution and Institute for Studies and Industrial Development. In most of these cases the constructions are already complete and have become functional."
134. Consequently, the following directions were issued:
"10. In view of what has been stated above, the MoEF has now to take a decision by taking the land as constraint area. It is needless to say that even if the land is held to be constraint area the constructions thereon have to be made after having the requisite clearance. The MoEF shall take note of the stands projected by the Respondents. We are prima facie satisfied about the bona fides of the Respondents but at the same time it needs no emphasis that DDA should have been more transparent in ensuring that it was not putting a site for auction where there was scope for litigation. It had definitely created an impression that all necessary clearances had been obtained, though it does not appear to be so. What remains to be decided as to what remedial measures including imposition of such amounts as costs can be taken".
135. The position as far as the present set of cases is concerned, is not very different. The DPCC appears to have woken up after the construction of the shopping-cum-commercial complexes/malls was completed. Therefore as far as the present cases are concerned, the above orders do not come to the aid of the DPCC for seeking to proceed against the Petitioner for failing to obtain prior consent to operate under the Air W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 82 of 122 Act and prior consent to operate under the Water Act. As already clarified, this would not preclude the DPCC from proceeding under the Air Act and Water Act in the manner already discussed hereinbefore.
136. The understanding of the law by the DPCC as reflected on its website should not be taken to be determinative. There is no estoppel against law. The position depicted by the DPCC on its website will be obviously subject to and in consonance with the correct legal position. There has been a lack of clarity even within the DPCC on whether the provisions of the Water Act and the Air Act apply to construction activity. Hopefully that confusion should not remain any longer.
137. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court while setting aside the order dated 31st December 2007 passed by the DPCC permits it to proceed in accordance with law against the Petitioner in terms of Section 25(5) of the Water Act and the relevant provisions of the Air Act.
138. A point has been urged by the Petitioner that substantial portions of the complex have been sold/leased out to different persons and, therefore, the complex is no longer in the control of the Petitioner. As and when a fresh show cause notice is issued to the Petitioner by the DPCC, it will be open to the Petitioner to furnish to the DPCC the names of the individual owners of the different portions who might be liable to the extent of their respective portions. This by no means will absolve the Petitioner of its liability which is joint and several with such individual owners/lessees. It will be for the DPCC to decide who should be made liable for complying W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 83 of 122 with the various provisions under the Water Act and the Air Act.
139. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 3095 of 2008 (DLF Ltd.).
140. The case of the Petitioner is that a plot of land admeasuring 15659.50 sq.m. situated at District Centre, Saket, New Delhi with an attached general parking plot admeasuring 14072.48 sq. m. was purchased in an auction from DDA to be used as retail/office/multiplex/ service apartment purposes. Although according to the Petitioner no formal consent was required, to avoid any hyper-technical objection and impediment at a later stage and without prejudice to its rights, the Petitioner applied to the DPCC for consent to establish under the Water Act and consent to operate under the Air Act on 3rd June 2005. The first of the applications has not till date been formally rejected and thus shall be deemed to have been granted on 2nd October 2005 in terms of Section 25 (7) Water Act.
141. The Petitioner applied on 2nd December 2005 seeking EIA clearance under the EIA Notification as amended on 7th July 2004. As per the requirement of the said Notification, a no objection certificate and public hearing was to be afforded by the public hearing panel of which the representative of the DPCC was a member.
142. The Petitioner states that all necessary permissions for W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 84 of 122 commencement of construction including those from the MCD, Fire Department, Electricity Department, Airport Authority of India and Delhi Urban Arts Commission were taken. The MoEF granted EIA clearance to the Petitioner on 15th January 2007. DPCC wrote to the Petitioner on 20th and 30th August, 2007 that the earlier application filed by it for consent on 3rd June 2005 has been forwarded to the Government of India and that it should file a fresh application.
143. A fresh application for consent to establish was filed by the Petitioner with the DPCC on 25th/26th September, 2007. The said application was not disposed of or rejected within a period of four months thereafter. Thus consent was deemed to have been granted on 25th January 2008 in terms of Section 25 (7) Water Act. Nevertheless, the DPCC issued the impugned order dated 4th April 2008 and directed the Petitioner to pay fine and furnish a bank guarantee. This has been challenged in the present writ petition.
144. The stand of the DPCC is no different from its stand in W.P.(C) No. 543 of 2008 (Splendor Landbase).
145. For the reasons already discussed, the need for the Petitioner to apply under the Air Act and the Water Act did not get obviated on account of the fact that it had an environmental clearance. However, here the construction was already complete. 50% of the construction was complete by end of 2006 and no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. An order was straightway passed requiring the Petitioner to W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 85 of 122 pay penalty and furnish a bank guarantee. Such a direction is, for reasons already stated, ultra vires the powers of the DPCC under the Water Act and the Air Act and is unsustainable in law.
146. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 4th April 2008 is set aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act but only after complying with the due process requirements under the Rules. If after making its own enquiry/ investigations into the matter, it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, and the corrective action is not taken within the time limit set for the purpose, it can proceed further to issue directions as envisaged under Section 31A Air Act and Section 33A Water Act. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P. (C) No.4319 of 2008. (DLF Ltd.).
147. The Petitioner is the owner of a residential plot at W-Block, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. It purchased the property from a private individual in terms of Sale Deed dated 31 st March 1959. The Petitioner proposed to construct a residential housing complex. The Petitioner filed an application on 23rd February 2007 with the MoEF for EIA clearance, which was granted on 26th December 2007. Without prejudice to its rights, the Petitioner applied to DPCC for consent to establish on 8th March 2007. The application remained pending and was not rejected for over four months thereafter. Consequently consent to establish was W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 86 of 122 deemed to have been granted on 7th July 2007 in terms of Section 25 (7) Water Act.
148. The Petitioner had not started the construction till the filing of this petition. Reminders dated 12th March 2008, 27th March 2008, 10th April 2008 and 16th May 2008 were sent to DPCC but to no effect. DPCC wrote to the Petitioner on 3rd April 2008 seeking to take action against the Petitioner for not taking the prior consent before commencement of construction. By letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007, the DPCC wrote to the Petitioner asking him to apply afresh as the earlier application had been forwarded to Central Government. During the course of hearing in other cases of group companies, it was explained that the project is for residential group housing and not for trade, commercial or industrial purposes; environment clearance had been granted and there was a deemed consent in view of the fact that their application dated 8th March 2007 was not rejected for over four months thereafter.
149. Feeling aggrieved by the threatened action of the Respondent, inter alia, of closure, imposition of penalty and bank guarantee, the Petitioner filed the present petition. It is further pointed out that during the present petition the DPCC has granted consent to establish. There is no denial by the DPCC of the above assertions by the Petitioner.
150. Even if the building had an EIA clearance, the provisions of the Water Act would continue to apply for the reasons already explained by W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 87 of 122 this Court hereinbefore. However, considering that it is a residential complex the Petitioner was not required to obtain consent under the Air Act. The Petitioner has already been granted EIA clearance on 26 th September 2007. The order passed by the DPCC directing the Petitioner to apply for consent to establish does not survive since consent to establish has been granted to the Petitioner. Any violations of either the Water Act or Air Act detected hereafter by the DPCC will obviously be actionable but only after the DPCC follow the due process requirements of the law.
151. The writ petition is disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 4321 of 2008 (Paliwal Developers Ltd.)
152. The Petitioner purchased a plot of land admeasuring about 5495 sq.m. situated at Mayur Vihar Phase-I Extension, Delhi in an open auction from the DDA for constructing a shopping complex. According to the Petitioner, since the built up area proposed was 12325 sq.m no environment clearance was considered necessary. All the necessary permissions for construction were granted by the MCD and other authorities. On 5th September 2006, an application for consent to establish was filed with the DPCC. The application remained pending and was not rejected for over four months thereafter. The Petitioner‟s case is that consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted on 4th January 2007. Reminders were sent on 12th March 2008, 27th March 2008, 10th April 2008 and 16th May 2008 to avoid any difficulty at a later stage but to no effect. DPCC wrote to the Petitioner on 2nd W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 88 of 122 November 2007, 14th March 20008 and 21st April 2008 for taking action for not taking prior consent to establish and prior environment clearances. The Petitioner replied to these letters. The DPCC by letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007 asked the Petitioner to apply afresh as its earlier application dated 5th September 2006 had been sent to the Central Government. Another application for consent to establish was filed by the Petitioner with the DPCC on 8th February 2007. This was also not disposed of within four months. Consequently the Petitioner contends that for a second time consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted on 7th June 2007. After about one year of the filing of the second application, the DPCC asked the Petitioner to file an affidavit of compliance, which was complied with. It was explained that no environment clearance was necessary as the built up area was less than 20,000 sq.m. In any event consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted. Yet, the DPCC insisted and threatened to take legal action including levying a penalty, asking for a bank guarantee and ordering closure. In the circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.
153. The DPCC has not denied the above contentions of the Petitioner. In particular there is no denial of the assertion that the application for consent to establish filed by the Petitioner on 5th September 2006 should be deemed to have been granted on 4th January 2007. Therefore, in this case even the proceedings under Section 25(5) of the Water Act cannot be initiated by the DPCC. This will, in any event, not preclude the DPCC from taking any action against the Petitioner upon any inspection taken hereinafter, if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 89 of 122 question is found acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will of course be taken only after due process of law as envisaged by the Rules.
154. The impugned orders passed by the DPCC on 2nd November 2007, 14th March 2008 and 21st April 2008 directing the Petitioner to apply for consent to establish are hereby set aside. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 4322 of 2008 (DLF Ltd. )
155. The Petitioner states that it is the owner of a residential plot at E- Block, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi having purchased the same from a private individual in terms of Sale Deed for the purpose of construction of a residential complex. According to the inspection report dated 2nd June 2008, the total built up area is 14,246.918 sq.m. As such, no environment clearance was necessary under EIA Notification. All necessary permissions to construct a residential housing complex were granted on 22nd August 2007. Before commencement of construction, the Petitioner filed an application dated 14th May 2007 with the DPCC, complete in all respects, seeking consent to establish. The said application was not rejected for over four months thereafter. The Petitioner submits that in the circumstances, in terms of Section 25 (7) Water Act, consent to establish shall be deemed to have been granted on 13th September 2007. However, to avoid any difficulty at a later stage, reminders were sent to the DPCC by the Petitioner on 12th March 2008, 27th March 2008, 10th April 2008 and 16th May 2008. The DPCC W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 90 of 122 threatened to take action against the Petitioner by its letters dated 3rd March 2008 and 2nd May 2008 for not taking prior consent and prior environment clearance. The Petitioner explained the entire position to the Respondent. By letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007, the DPCC asked the Petitioner to apply afresh as its earlier applications had been forwarded to the Central Government. During the course of hearing before the CMC, it was explained that the project was for residential group housing and not for trade, commercial or industrial purposes; no environment clearance was necessary and consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted since the Petitioner‟s application dated 14th May 2007 for consent to establish had not been rejected even four months thereafter. Feeling aggrieved by the threatened action of the DPCC of directing closure, imposition of penalty and requiring the furnishing of bank guarantee, the present petition was filed.
156. The facts of this case are no different from the facts in W.P.(C) No. 4319 of 2008 except that the construction commenced on 5 th March 2008 and the construction was proposed to be completed in 3 years from the date of its commencement. Further, the total built up area is 14,246.918 sq.m. and, therefore, there was no requirement for obtaining EIA clearance. The DPCC is not disputing that the Petitioner had filed an application on 14th May 2007 which was not disposed of within four months thereafter. In terms of Section 25(7) of the Water Act, therefore, the consent to establish must be deemed to have been granted. This being a residential complex, there was no need to obtain consent to operate under the Air Act.
W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 91 of 122
157. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 2nd November 2007, 3rd March 2008 and 2nd May 2008 passed by the DPCC directing the Petitioner to apply to the DPCC for consent to establish are hereby set aside. This will, in any event, not preclude the DPCC from taking any action against the Petitioner upon any inspection taken hereinafter, if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will of course be taken only after following due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P.(C) No. 4323 of 2008 (DLF Retailer Developers Ltd.)
158. The Petitioner purchased two plots of land bearing No. A-1 and P- 2B Saket Place, New Delhi admeasuring about 9492 sq.m. and 8775.92 sq.m. respectively from the DDA in an open auction for the purpose of shopping-cum-commercial complex. EIA clearance was granted on 15th January 2007. According to the Petitioner, all necessary permissions from the MCD and other authorities were granted in November 2006. On 1st June 2006, the Petitioner applied to DPCC for consent to establish. The application remained pending and was not rejected for over four months thereafter. The Petitioner‟s case is that consent to establish is deemed to have been granted on 30th September 2006. However, to avoid any difficulty at a later stage, reminders were sent by the Petitioner to the DPCC in March/April 2008 but to no avail. During the course of hearing concerning other projects of the group companies, it was explained to the CMC that EIA clearance had been granted and that consent to establish W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 92 of 122 should be deemed to have been granted. By its letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007 DPCC asked the Petitioner to apply a fresh for consent to establish as its earlier application had been forwarded to the Central Government. A fresh application for consent to establish was filed by the Petitioner with the DPCC on 25th September 2007. This too was not rejected for over four months thereafter. According to the Petitioner, for a second time consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted on 24th January 2008. On one of the visits to the office of the Respondent, the Petitioner was directed to file the affidavit of compliance. This was done by the Petitioner. Nevertheless, the DPCC threatened to take action against the Petitioner by ordering closure, imposing a penalty and/or requiring the furnishing of a bank guarantee on the ground that the Petitioner had commenced construction without prior consent to establish and without prior EIA clearance. In the circumstances, the present petition was filed.
159. The construction commenced in February 2007 and was completed in December 2008. The Petitioner obtained EIA clearance on 15th January 2007. The Petitioner applied to the DPCC for consent to establish on 1st June 2006 and there was no decision thereon for over four months thereafter. The consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted under Section 25(7) of the Water Act on 13th September 2006. The subsequent letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007 written by the DPCC requiring the Petitioner to apply afresh were without the authority of law. Nevertheless, even the fresh application filed on 25 th September 2007 for consent was not rejected within four months W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 93 of 122 thereafter. Therefore the Petitioner should deemed to have been granted consent to establish on 24th January 2008 as well.
160. With the DPCC having failed to act upon the Petitioner‟s application for consent to establish, there was no legal basis for its orders dated 20th and 30th August 2007. They are accordingly set aside. This will not preclude the DPCC in any event from taking any action against the Petitioner upon any inspection undertaken hereinafter, if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will of course be taken only after following due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 4330 of 2008 (DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.)
161. The Petitioner purchased a plot of land bearing No. 10-11 at Jasola, New Delhi, admeasuring 12,880 sq.m. in an open auction held by DDA. The land was to be used for construction of a commercial and retail centre. The total built up area of the proposed building was 47603.461 sq.m. The Petitioner was granted EIA clearance on 16th May 2007. The Petitioner states that all necessary permissions to construct from the municipal and other authorities were granted. On 6th September 2006/14th October 2006, the Petitioner applied to the DPCC for consent to establish. The application was not rejected for over four months thereafter and in terms of Section 25 (7) of the Water Act it was deemed to have been granted on 13th February 2007. Reminders were sent by the W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 94 of 122 Petitioner to the DPCC in March and April 2008 to avoid any difficulty at a later stage but to no avail. DPCC sent notices dated 18th March 2008 and 30th April 2008 and threatened to take action against the Petitioner for not obtaining prior consent to establish and prior environment clearance. The Petitioner replied to the DPCC stating that environment clearance had been granted and consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted. During the course of hearing before the CMC, this was reiterated. Nevertheless by its letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007, the DPCC required the Petitioner to apply afresh as the earlier application had been forwarded to the Central Government. A fresh application was filed on 8th February 2007.This too was not rejected for over four months thereafter. The Petitioner contends that for a second time, the consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted on 7th June 2007. On one of the visits to the office of the DPCC, the Petitioner was directed to file the affidavit of compliance. This was done. Nevertheless, the DPCC threatened to take action against the Petitioner for closure, imposition of penalty and furnishing of bank guarantee on the ground that it had commenced construction without obtaining prior consent to establish and without prior environment clearance. In the circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.
162. The total built up area here is 47603.46 sq.m. The EIA clearance was obtained on 16th May 2007. The Petitioner commenced construction sometime in December 2006/January 2007 and completed it in August 2008. The letters received by the Petitioner on 20 th August 2007 and 30th August 2007 asking it to apply for consent to establish were, in fact, to no W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 95 of 122 effect since application had been filed earlier on 6 th September 2006 and 14th December 2006 which were not rejected within four months thereafter. Again on 8th February 2007 a fresh application was filed. Therefore these two show cause notices were to no effect. The subsequent letters dated 18th March 2008 and 30th April 2008 asking the Petitioner again to apply were also to no effect. The said two letters are hereby set aside. It is made clear that this will, in any event, not preclude the DPCC from taking action against the Petitioner if upon any inspection undertaken hereinafter, the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found to be acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will be taken only after following the due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P. (C) No. 4333 of 2008 (Galleria Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd.)
163. The Petitioner purchased a plot of land at Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring 14145.040 sq.m. in an open auction held by the DDA. The plot of land was to be used for construction of a shopping centre. The Petitioner was granted EIA clearance on 15th January 2007. All necessary permissions to construct from the municipal and other authorities were granted. On 5th April 2005, the Petitioner applied to the DPCC for consent to establish. The application was not disposed for over four months thereafter. According to the Petitioner, consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted in terms of Section 25 (7) Water Act on 4th August 2005. The DPCC sent notices dated 14th March 2008 W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 96 of 122 and 9th May 2008 and threatened to take action against the Petitioner for not obtaining prior consent to establish and prior environment clearance. The Petitioner replied to the DPCC stating that EIA clearance had been granted and consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted. During the course of hearing before the CMC this was reiterated. By its letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007, the DPCC asked the Petitioner to apply afresh for consent to establish as its earlier application had been forwarded to the Central Government. A fresh application was filed on 25th September 2007. This too was not rejected for over four months. According to the Petitioner for a second time consent to establish should be deemed to have been granted on 24th January 2008. On one of the visits to the office of the Respondent, the Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit of compliance, which it did. Nevertheless the DPCC threatened to take action against the Petitioner for closure, imposition of penalty and furnishing of bank guarantee on the ground that it had not obtained consent to establish prior to commencement of construction. In the circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.
164. This shopping complex has a total built up area of 34895.55 sq.m. The Petitioner obtained EIA clearance on 15th January 2007. The letters received by the Petitioner from the DPCC on 14th March 2008 and 9th May 2008 asking him to apply for prior consent is to no effect since the Petitioner had applied as early as 5 th April 2005 to DPCC which was not rejected within four months thereafter. A fresh application was filed on 25th September 2007 and that too was not rejected for over four months thereafter. Thus, for the second time, consent should be deemed to have W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 97 of 122 been granted under the Water Act on 24th January 2008.
165. The orders dated 14th March 2008 and 9th May 2008 of the DPCC are accordingly set aside. It is made clear that this will not preclude the DPCC from taking action against the Petitioner upon any inspection undertaken hereinafter and if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found to be acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will be taken only after following the due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P. (C) No.3905 of 2008 (Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd.).
166. The Petitioner states that in an auction held on 15th December 2003, the Petitioner purchased a commercial Plot No. 4 in the layout plan of Shopping Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi admeasuring about 15300 sq. m. The necessary permissions from municipal authorities, Electricity, Airport Authority of India, Fire Services and Delhi Urban Art Commission were obtained. On 27th April 2005, an application for consent to establish was filed by the Petitioner with the DPCC. The DPCC was a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court of India in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 titled as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. The Supreme Court, by an order dated 20th March 2006, took note of the ongoing construction and directed that as a special case, all permissions and clearances in the present case would be dealt with by the Central Government. The DPCC was directed to forward all the W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 98 of 122 papers to the Central Government. The DPCC did so. A public hearing was organized to which a Member, DPCC was a party. One of the requirements of the public hearing was the grant of a No Objection Certificate by the DPCC, which apparently was granted or was deemed to have been granted by the DPCC before conducting the public hearing. The EIA Notification 1994 as amended on 7th July 2004 was replaced by a Notification dated 14th September 2006. Certain clarificatory Circulars dated 13th October 2006 and 21st November 2006 were issued by the Central Government permitting the existing projects to continue. EIA clearance was granted by the MoEF on 24th November 2006. The application for consent to establish filed by the Petitioner with DPCC on 27th April 2005 remained pending. A reminder was sent by the Petitioner on 16th July 2007 to know the fate of their application. By letters dated 20th and 30th August 2007, the DPCC directed the Petitioner to file a fresh application for consent as the earlier application had been forwarded to the Central Government. A fresh application for consent to establish was filed by the Petitioner on 21st /25th September 2007 but this too was not rejected within four months. For a second time, the consent to establish was deemed to have been granted on 24th January 2008. It was for the first time on 18th March 2008 that the DPCC asked for certain documents. These were supplied. The CMC insisted on levying a penalty on the Petitioner apart from requiring the furnishing of a bank guarantee.
167. The total built up area is 59731.67 sq.m. The construction commenced in September 2005 and was completed on 17th August 2008. EIA clearance was granted on 24th November 2006. On 27th April 2005, W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 99 of 122 application for consent was filed. Fresh applications were filed on 21st/25th September 2007 and no rejection order was passed for at least four months thereafter. The Petitioner is right in its contention that consent under the Water Act must have been deemed to be granted on 24th January 2008. On 18th March 2008, DPCC asked for documents and these were supplied.
168. The order dated 18th March 2008 of the DPCC imposing environmental damages and requiring the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee are, for the reasons already explained, unsustainable in law. The said order is hereby set aside. It is made clear that this will not preclude the DPCC from taking any action against the Petitioner upon any inspection taken hereinafter, if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will be taken only after following the due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P. (C) No.8789 of 2008 (Laxmi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.)
169. The Petitioner states that EIA clearance had been granted to the Petitioner by the MoEF under the EPA on an application filed by it on 28th March 2007 i.e. much before it commenced construction. The very basis on which penalties are sought to be imposed on the Petitioner under the Air and Water Acts do not per se amount to acts of pollution much less industrial pollution or air pollution or water pollution as contemplated by the said acts. This fact is not denied by Respondent No. W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 100 of 122 1 in its pleadings.
170. The case of the Petitioner is that the CMC or the DPCC has no power to impose environmental damages and/or seek bank guarantee under either the Water Act or the Air Act. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the „precautionary principle‟ and/or the polluter pays principle are being misconstrued and misused by Respondent No. 1. Fee and fines/penalties are two totally different concepts in law. While a fee or a levy can be collected under an appropriate statute by way of a statutory interdict and used for the purpose for which it has been imposed, a fine or penalty cannot be collected and used for discharging governmental obligations or meeting expenses of the government. It is submitted that the actions of the Respondent in imposing and collecting penalties are ultra vires their powers under the Air Act and Water Act and beyond the powers vested in the said Respondent under the said Acts.
171. This is a commercial plot over a total built up area of 27,667.288 sq.m. EIA clearance has been granted on 31st January 2008. The date of commencement of construction was sometime in March 2007 and it was proposed to be completed in June 2009. It appears, that by a letter dated 7th December 2007, the Petitioner was asked to apply for consent to establish which it disputed. The impugned order dated 15th October 2008 was passed imposing environmental damages and requiring the furnishing of bank guarantee and also directing the Petitioner to obtain consent to establish.
W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 101 of 122
172. For the reasons already discussed, the order imposing environmental damages to the extent of `40 lakhs and requiring the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee are unsustainable in law and hereby set aside. The direction that the Petitioner should now apply afresh for consent to establish is also not capable of being complied with. The said order is hereby set aside. It is made clear that this will, in any event, not preclude the DPCC from taking any action against the Petitioner upon an inspection being undertaken hereafter if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found to be acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will be taken only after following the due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P. (C) No.8901 of 2008 (Brightways Housing and Development Ltd.)
173. A commercial plot No. 7, Non-Hierarchical Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi, measuring 5198 sq.m. was purchased by the Petitioner in an open auction of the DDA on 7th July 2004 for a total consideration of ` 33,07,50,000/-. A perpetual Lease Deed was executed in favour of the Petitioner on 29th September 2005 and the actual, physical possession of the said plot was also handed over on the same date. Building plans for raising construction on the said plot were sanctioned by the DDA on 7th February 2006. The Petitioner states that although no EIA clearance was required for raising construction on the said plot, either prior or subsequent to the raising of construction, but to avoid precipitate action, the Petitioner filed an application dated 1st W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 102 of 122 September 2007 with Respondent No.3 for EIA clearance and also submitted the requisite documents.
174. The Petitioner filed an application dated 25 th October 2007 with the DPCC for consent to establish. A notice dated 18th March 2008 was received by the Petitioner from the DPCC alleging that the Petitioner had commenced construction without obtaining prior consent to establish. A reply dated 27th March 2008 was sent by the Petitioner informing that its application seeking consent to establish was already pending with the DPCC. The DPCC sent a notice dated 30th April 2008 requiring the Petitioner to submit an EIA clearance, approved architectural drawing and completion certificate. Thereafter the DPCC sent a letter dated 1st July 2008 informing the Petitioner that its case was being placed before the CMC. The Petitioner submits that after exchange of correspondence and certain meetings held, the CMC in its meeting held on 28 th August 2008, without appreciating the case of the Petitioner and without any authority imposed a penalty of ` 1 crore and further called upon the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of ` 2 crores.
175. The MoEF intimated the Petitioner of the creation of a States Committee for obtaining environmental clearance. As a result the Petitioner applied afresh to the State Committee of the MoEF for an EIA Clearance by way of application dated 2nd September 2008. No decision was however taken on the said application. On a representation made by the Petitioner to the DPCC on 16th September 2008, the CMC of the DPCC in a meeting held on 24th November 2008 reduced the penalty to W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 103 of 122 ` 72 lakhs and required the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of ` 1.5 crores considering an amount of ` 28 lakhs had been earlier paid by the Petitioner to the DDA.
176. This Court finds that the impugned order imposing the penalty has not been issued by DPCC but by the CMC, which is a Committee constituted by the Chairman, DPCC by an office order dated 28th December 2006. First, no power vests with the Chairman, DPCC under the Water Act or the Air Act to further delegate his powers to the CMC. Therefore CMC had no authority to conduct any proceedings for imposing penalty on the Petitioner. In any event, even the constitution of the CMC was solely for the purpose of granting/refusing/revoking of consent to establish. It had no power delegated to it to impose any penalty or seek bank guarantee or order closure of the premises or recommend prosecution. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 24th November 2008 of the CMC imposing environmental damages to the tune of ` 72 lakhs and requiring the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of ` 1.5 crore is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside.
177. The construction commenced in June 2005 and was completed in June 2007. It is only thereafter that an impugned notice dated 18 th March 2008 was issued by the DPCC asking the Petitioner to apply afresh for consent to establish. For the reasons already mentioned, such a direction was not capable of being complied with. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 104 of 122 Water Act and relevant provisions of the Air Act but only after following the due process of law. If, after making its enquiry/investigations into the matter, the DPCC finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, then it can proceed thereafter in accordance with law. It may be observed that EIA clearance was required for the project of the Petitioner since the total built up area is 21096.513 sq.m. It is not clear whether the MoEF has taken a decision on the Petitioner‟s application dated 2nd September 2005.
178. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P. (C) No.1391 of 2010 (R.C. Sood and Co. Pvt.Ltd.)
179. The Petitioner is stated to be the owner of Plot No. 10, Shivaji Palace District Center, Shivaji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi. The size of the plot is 5,832 sq.m. The plot was purchased from the MCD through a tender process on 30th July 2004. The Petitioner was granted the requisite permission to construct a shopping-cum-residential complex by the DDA. The Petitioner, on 7th September 2006, applied to the MoEF for EIA clearance. The Petitioner resumed the construction of the shopping complex in accordance with the notifications and circulars.
180. The Petitioner states that it proceeded on the basis that it was not required to obtain consent to establish or consent to operate under the Water Act and Air Act respectively. However, since the Petitioner did not want any impediment in its project, it made an application dated 11th September 2006 to the DPCC seeking consent to establish along with W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 105 of 122 requisite documents. The Petitioner alleges that the DPCC erroneously forwarded the said application of the Petitioner to the MoEF for issuance of a „No Objection Certificate‟ under the 2006 Notification. The Petitioner claims to have been surprised to receive a notice dated 15th January 2007 from the DPCC to show cause why prosecution proceedings should not be initiated against it and why the establishment should not be closed down as the Petitioner had started construction without obtaining prior consent to establish under the Water Act and prior consent to operate under the Air Act. The Petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 28th February 2007 stating that it was the DPCC itself which had forwarded the application of the Petitioner to the MoEF. Nevertheless, as a measure of caution, the Petitioner re-submitted the application along with all requisite documents to the Respondent on 27th February 2007.
181. The Petitioner states that after an inordinate delay, DPCC replied to the Petitioner on 5th December 2007 by directing the Petitioner to first pursue its application for obtaining EIA clearance from the MoEF and thereafter forward a copy of the said EIA clearance to the DPCC for consideration of its application. The Petitioner was granted the EIA clearance by the MoEF on 26th March 2008 which the Petitioner forwarded to the DPCC on 27th March 2008. Thereafter the DPCC by letter dated 28th April 2008 directed the Petitioner to submit an affidavit giving item-wise compliance of all the conditions laid down in the EIA clearance. It is submitted that although the DPCC had no role in the matter of EIA clearance, the Petitioner, with a view to avoiding W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 106 of 122 controversy, submitted the said affidavit under cover of its letter dated 10th June 2008.
182. The Petitioner was called for a hearing before the CMC of the DPCC on 17th September 2008. During the course of the hearing, it appeared that the Petitioner had been called for the purposes of deciding on the imposition of penalty and requiring the furnishing of a bank guarantee for the purported violation of the Water Act and Air Act on part of the Petitioner. Ultimately, the CMC imposed a penalty of ` 59 lakhs and directed the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for ` 1.18 Crores for a period of three years.
183. On 28th November 2008, the Petitioner received a letter from the DPCC alleging that the Petitioner had commenced construction activities without obtaining prior consent under the aforesaid Acts and therefore had violated the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. It was further alleged that certain deficiencies were noted in the project/building of the Petitioner. On 3rd December 2008, in another meeting called by the DPCC, the Petitioner tried to explain to the DPCC that it had not committed any violation of any of the laws, rules, regulations. On this, the DPCC made a marginal reduction of the penalty from ` 59 lakhs to ` 50 lakhs and of the bank guarantee from ` 1.18 crores to ` 1 crore. In response to the letter dated 28th November 2008 of the Respondent, the Petitioner filed an affidavit on 30th January 2009 claiming that the deficiencies pointed out by the DPCC in its letter dated 28th November 2008 had been duly rectified.
W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 107 of 122
184. The Petitioner states that after the completion of construction it let out the building to M/s. Shoppers Stop Ltd. and executed a sub-lease dated 11th May 2007 for running a shopping mall in the said building. Shopper‟s Stop took possession of the building in June 2007. The DPCC in its meeting held on 23rd December 2008 directed Shoppers Stop Ltd. to apply for consent to operate.
185. The Petitioner states that it received another letter from the DPCC on 3rd March 2009 referring to the inspection conducted by "Special Inspection Team" of the DPCC on 16th January 2009 wherein certain deficiencies were noted by SIT in the premises of the Petitioner. On 23 rd May 2009, the Petitioner clarified to the Respondent that it had already rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the SIT. The Petitioner states that it was given a hearing on 21st January 2010. According to the Petitioner, the DPCC at this meeting took a decision to launch prosecution against the Petitioner. The Petitioner received a letter dated 11 th February 2010 from the DPCC stating that its earlier application of 11 th September 2006 had become infructuous. With the Petitioner‟s representation dated 26 th February 2010 to the DPCC eliciting no response, the present writ petition was filed challenging the minutes of the CMC‟s meetings dated 17th September 2008, 3rd December 2008 and 21st January 2010.
186. The decision dated 17th September 2008 of the CMC of the DPCC imposing environmental damages to the tune of ` 59 lakhs and requiring the Petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of ` 1.18 crores is for reasons already discussed unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside. W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 108 of 122 The subsequent decisions dated 3rd December 2008 and 21st January 2010 are also without the authority of law and are hereby set aside. It is made clear that this will, in any event, not preclude the DPCC from taking any action against the Petitioner upon an inspection being undertaken hereafter if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found to be acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will be taken only after following the due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 9128 of 2009 (Ridge View Construction Pvt. Ltd.)
187. A commercial plot measuring 2500 sq.m. being Plot No. D-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi was purchased by the Petitioner in an open auction conducted by DDA on 29th September 2003 for a total consideration of ` 43,41,00,000/- and the possession of the said plot was handed over to the Petitioner soon thereafter. A perpetual lease deed dated 1st July 2004 was subsequently executed by the DDA in favour of the Petitioner. The DDA handed over to the Petitioner the architectural conditions and controls which enabled the Petitioner to raise construction as per the control drawings. Construction was thus raised by the Petitioner on the plot till the plinth level much before 7th July 2004.
188. The Petitioner filed an application with the MoEF seeking EIA clearance on 2nd September 2008. The Petitioner also filed an application dated 2nd September 2008 with DPCC for consent to establish. The Petitioner states that it was surprised to receive a notice dated 9th August W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 109 of 122 2008 issued by the DPCC to M/s. Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited (`TDIL‟) wherein it was alleged that the construction of a retail- cum-office complex was being carried out by TDIL. The Petitioner states that on various occasions it clarified to the DPCC that the said commercial complex was being developed by the Petitioner. However the show cause notices continued to be issued to TDIL. Subsequently, the CMC by an order dated 15th October 2008 issued directions for closure of the Petitioner‟s retail-cum-office complex immediately and further asked the electricity distribution companies to disconnect the electricity supply and the DJB to disconnect the water supply.
189. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15th October 2008, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 7850 of 2008. This Court stayed the operation of the impugned order. Another show cause notice dated 10th November 2008 was issued by the DPCC. This Court at the next hearing held that on account of issuance of the fresh show cause notice nothing survived in the said writ petition.
190. The Petitioner replied to the fresh show cause notice on 21st November 2008. Thereafter, the DPCC issued a letter dated 8th May 2009 directing the Petitioner to close its commercial building immediately and further directing the NDPL/BSES to disconnect the electricity supply and the DJB to disconnect the water connection to the said building. The said directions were purportedly as a result of a decision taken by the CMC on 23rd April 2009 and an inspection carried out at the site on 8 th April 2009. W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 110 of 122
191. The Petitioner submitted that no EIA clearance was required since the built up area of the premises (19,227.15 sq.m.) was less than 20,000 sq.m. The Petitioner had installed a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) of 56 KLD capacity which was fully operational prior to 8th April 2009 and for which an adequacy report/certificate had also been granted by a recognised institute nominated by the DPCC itself. Regarding no permission having been obtained from the DJB for extraction of ground water from bore well, it is submitted that the Petitioner has already obtained permission from the concerned authorities. The Petitioner states that it is not utilizing the water from the bore well and it has deployed tankers for fulfilling its requirements of water in the complex. The Petitioner alleges that when its representative went to the DPCC to submit an application for consent to operate, the application was refused.
192. In the above circumstances, the present writ petition was filed challenging the closure order dated 23rd April 2009 communicated to the Petitioner on 8th May 2009.
193. For the detailed reasons already discussed, the question of the DPCC taking action for the Petitioner not having obtained EIA clearance does not arise. In any event, the Petitioner with the built up area being less than 20,000 sq.m., there was perhaps no requirement to obtain such EIA clearance. If this was one of the reasons for the closure order then such closure order is unsustainable in law. As regards the other deficiencies pointed out, and the Petitioner‟s claim to have cured them, they involve disputed questions which this Court cannot possible go into. W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 111 of 122 Nevertheless, it appears to this Court that the procedural requirement to be followed by the DPCC prior to passing such closure order was not complied with by the DPCC in the instant case.
194. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court sets aside the closure order dated 23rd April 2009 communicated to the Petitioner on 8 th May 2009. However, this will not preclude the DPCC from taking any action against the Petitioner upon any inspection taken hereinafter, if the Petitioner or any one in occupation of the building in question is found acting in violation of the provisions of either the Water Act or the Air Act. Such action will of course be taken only after due process of law as envisaged by the Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 465 of 2009 (Prosperous Estates Pvt. Ltd.)
195. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 14,850.227 sq.m. Completion certificate was granted on 12th October 2006. No show cause notice was issued. On 5th December 2008, the DPCC issued a letter to the Petitioner giving it an opportunity of being heard on 23rd December 2008.On 23rd December 2008, an order was passed directing the Petitioner to pay damages, furnish bank guarantee and to apply for consent to establish.
196. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 23rd December 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 112 of 122 aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either of the Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 508 of 2009 (Best Realtors India Pvt. Ltd.)
197. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 9171.63 sq.m. The construction of the building commenced sometime in January 2007 and was completed in January 2009. No show cause notice was issued. On 27th October 2008, the DPCC issued a letter to the Petitioner giving it an opportunity of being heard on 6th November 2008. On 6th November 2008, an order was passed directing the Petitioner to pay damages, furnish a bank guarantee and to apply for consent to establish. This order was communicated to the Petitioner on 9th January 2009 and the Petitioner was asked to take necessary action to comply with the said order.
198. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 6th November 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 113 of 122 aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 509 of 2009 (Nirvan Hire Purchase Ltd.)
199. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 8060.80 sq. m. Construction of the building commenced sometime in January 2007 and was completed in January 2009. No show cause notice was issued. On 27th October 2008, the DPCC issued a letter to the Petitioner giving it an opportunity of being heard on 6th November 2008. On 6th November 2008, an order was passed directing the Petitioner to pay damages, furnish bank guarantee and to apply for consent to establish. This order was communicated to the Petitioner on 9th January 2009 and the Petitioner was asked to take necessary action to comply with the said order.
200. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 6th November 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 114 of 122 aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 510 of 2009 (Maitri Mutual Benefits Ltd.)
201. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 8060.80 sq. m. Construction of the building commenced sometime in January 2007 and was completed in November 2008. No show cause notice was issued. On 27th October 2008, the DPCC issued a letter to the Petitioner giving it an opportunity of being heard on 6th November 2008. On 6th November 2008, an order was passed directing the Petitioner to pay damages, furnish bank guarantee and to apply for consent to establish. This order was communicated to the Petitioner on 9th January 2009 and the Petitioner was asked to take necessary action to comply with the said order.
202. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 6th November 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 115 of 122 aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 511 of 2009 (A.S. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.)
203. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 989.548 sq. m. Construction of the building commenced sometime in January 2006 and was completed in October 2007. No show cause notice was issued. On 27th October 2008, the DPCC issued a letter to the Petitioner giving it an opportunity of being heard on 6th November 2008. On 6th November 2008, an order was passed directing the Petitioner to pay damages, furnish a bank guarantee and to apply for consent to establish. This order was communicated to the Petitioner on 9th January 2009 and the Petitioner was asked to take necessary action to comply with the said order.
204. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 6th November 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 116 of 122 aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 525 of 2009 (ESS CEE CEE and Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.)
205. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 15883.097 sq. m. Construction of the building commenced on 10th January 2005 and was completed on 23rd February 2007. A show cause notice was issued on 5 th December 2007 and an order was passed on 12th August 2008 requiring the Petitioner to pay environmental damages of ` 20 lakhs and furnish a bank guarantee of ` 1 crore.
206. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 12th August 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 117 of 122 provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 794 of 2009 (Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.).
207. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 2802 sq. m. Construction of the building commenced on 10th September 2004 and was completed on 24th March 2005. A show cause notice was issued on 28th April 2008 and an order was passed on 6th November 2008 requiring the Petitioner to pay environmental damages of ` 2 lakhs and furnish a bank guarantee of ` 4 lakhs.
208. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 6th November 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 118 of 122 to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either of the Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 7575 of 2009 (Jindal Biochem Pvt. Ltd.)
209. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 3290 sq. m. Construction of the building commenced on 2nd February 2005 and was completed on 31st May 2006. A show cause notice was issued on 27th June 2008 and an order was passed on 6th November 2008 requiring the Petitioner to pay environmental damages of ` 2 lakhs and furnish a bank guarantee of ` 4 lakhs.
210. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 6th November 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 119 of 122 provisions of either of the Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 8208 of 2009 (Best City Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd.)
211. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 1066 sq. m. No show cause notice was issued. On 7th January 2009, the DPCC issued a letter to the Petitioner giving it an opportunity of being heard on 6th November 2008. On 21st January 2009 an order was passed requiring the Petitioner to pay environmental damages of `1 lakh and furnish a bank guarantee of ` 1 lakh. This order was communicated to the Petitioner on 27 th March 2009 and the Petitioner was asked to take necessary action to comply with the said order.
212. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 21st January 2008 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 120 of 122 provisions of either of the Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No.8751 of 2009 (Vardhman Properties Ltd.)
213. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 5461 sq. m. Construction of the building commenced on 10th September 2007 and was completed in April 2009. An order was received by the Petitioner on 3 rd January 2009 directing the Petitioner to obtain consent to establish. Another show cause notice was issued on 9th March 2009 to apply for consent to establish. On 30th April 2009, an order was passed directing closure of the Petitioner‟s building.
214. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned orders dated 3rd January 2009 and 30th April 2009 cannot be sustained in law and are hereby set aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either of the Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 121 of 122 W.P. (C) No. 10860 of 2009 (Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.).
215. The total built up area of the building constructed on a commercial plot in the present petition is 8478.27 sq. m. A show cause notice was received by the Petitioner on 13th February 2008 alleging that he had completed construction without obtaining the consent to establish. An order dated 18th March 2008 was passed directing the Petitioner to obtain consent to establish. On 24th July 2009 an order was passed directing the closure of the Petitioner‟s building.
216. For the reasons already explained hereinbefore, the impugned orders dated 13th February 2008, 18th March 2008 and 24th July 2009 cannot be sustained in law and are hereby set aside. It would nevertheless be open to the DPCC to now proceed in accordance with Section 25(5) of the Water Act and other relevant provisions of the Air Act. The DPCC will follow the due process of law. If after making an enquiry/investigation into the matter it finds that the use of the premises is causing either water or air pollution, it can proceed to take action in the manner explained hereinbefore. It will however not be open to the DPCC to levy any environmental damages or requiring the Petitioner to furnish any bank guarantee for non-compliance with the provisions of either of the Acts. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 dn W.P. (C) No. 543/2008 batch Page 122 of 122


{% extends "layout_task-list.html" %} {% block page_title %} Money Claims Prototype {% endblock %} {% block home_link %} index {% endblock %} {% block content %} {% include "includes/phase_banner_beta.html" %} Back {{formData | safe}} Do you want to use this email address for correspondence? Email If you want to use another email address, just change it above. {% include 'prototypes/prototype-jul-2019/includes/contact.html' %} {% endblock %}
If you want to use another email address, just change it above.


| Asymptomatic infection |
Chest X-ray is normal but the RT-PCR shows positive viral infection. |
| Mild |
Cases show low-grade fever, cough, pharyngitis, sneezing. Few cases also show nausea, diarrhea, etc. pharyngeal congestion is noted on physical examination of the suspected case. |
| Moderate |
Productive cough with developing pneumonia and increased episodes of fever and cough. At this stage, the CT image of the lungs starts showing opacities. |
| Severe |
Respiratory distress is evident with full-blown pneumonia, hypoxia, cyanosis along with fever, cough, and diarrhea. Oxygen saturation is also affected. |
| Critical |
Acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, heart failure, kidney failure can occur in end-stage cases. |


-
arrow-down
-
arrow-downwards
-
arrow-left
-
arrow-right
-
arrow-up-down
-
arrow-up
-
arrow-upwards
-
brand-always-learning
-
brand-fast-ft
-
brand-fast
-
brand-ft-logo-square
-
brand-ft-masthead
-
brand-ft
-
brand-pearson
-
clippings
-
comment
-
cross
-
email
-
eye
-
font-size
-
gift
-
hamburger
-
more
-
pinterest
-
printer
-
profile
-
refresh
-
search
-
section-arts
-
section-blogs
-
section-business-education
-
section-business-life
-
section-columnists
-
section-companies
-
section-ftfm
-
section-house-and-home
-
section-leader-and-letters
-
section-lex
-
section-magazine
-
section-markets-data
-
section-markets
-
section-money
-
section-special-report
-
section-uk
-
section-world
-
settings
-
share
-
sign-in
-
sign-out
-
social-email
-
social-facebook
-
social-linkedin
-
social-twitter
-
speechbubble
-
subscribe
-
thumb-up
-
tick
-
warning
58 icons in a web font generated from SVG sources.


Pyfluv is a Python package for the analysis of restoration geomorphology. Initially intended to serve as a programmatic way to analyze the data collected during routine monitoring of stream restoration projects, its scope has expanded to include novel techniques to autonomously identify interesting geomorphological features, allowing researchers and practitioners to quickly analyze huge datasets.
For more info, you can check out the project's Github repository, or go straight to the pyfluv Jupyter Notebook tutorials.