Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
 Petitioner. -Vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home (Transport) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Regional Transport Officer/ The Registering Authority, Mandavali (Triplicane), Chennai. .. Respondents.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Section 4 (1-A)(a) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 27 of 1998 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 2003 by substituting Schedule III, Part I and Section 3-A levying Green Tax in respect of Vehicles mentioned under the 4th Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 as ultravires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it amounts to levy if life tax for the new registration of vehicle in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioners:
!Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel for M/s. La Law for Petitioner in W.P.No. 35545/2004.
Mr. R. Natesan:- For petitioner in W.P.Nos. 30921, 32225/2004, 9987/2005 etc. Mr. M. Krishnappan:- For petitioner in W.P.Nos. 29540/2004, 67/2005 etc. For Respondents ^Mr. N.R. Chandran, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, Addl. Government Pleader.
Mr. A.L. Aomayaji, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. S. Venkatesh, Special Government Pleader.
Mr. Bhader Sayeed, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P.P. Shanmugasundaram, Government Advocate in all W.Ps.
:COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,) Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.35545 of 2004 is a senior Advocate and he seeks to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Section 4(1-A)(a) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 27 of 1998, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 1 3 of 2003, by substituting Schedule III, Part-I and Section 3-A levying Green Tax in respect of vehicles mentioned under the Fourth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in so far as it amounts to levy of life tax for new registration of vehicle of the petitioner is concerned.
3. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 35545 of 2004:
(a) According to the petitioner, he placed an order for purchase of SKODA Car with Millinem Motors, Chennai, and the dealer gave an invoice for Rs.11,00,000/-, being the cost of the vehicle, and while the petitioner approaching the second respondent for registration of the vehicle, the second respondent insisted to pay life tax of the vehicle as per the amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, as amended by Act 13 of 2003. The proposed life tax would come to Rs.69,000/- as per the latest amendment of the Taxation Act. In contrast, annual tax payable by the said vehicle is around Rs.1,000/-, which will account for a period of 15 years (life), not more than Rs.15,000/- if paid annually. There is a clear case of expropriatory tax levied by way of compulsion in respect of new vehicles registered in the State of Tamil Nadu on the basis of the value of the vehicle, instead of the unladen weight of the vehicle as per the established principles of the Motor Vehicle Taxation. Therefore, it has become necessary for the petitioner to challenge the validity of the amendment of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
(b) Notwithstanding the above, the levy of a new tax called "Green Tax" under Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, proposing to levy an additional tax in respect of vehicles specified in the Fourth Schedule for Motor Cycles exceeding 15 years a sum of Rs.500/- and other vehicles a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Section 4(1-A(a) read with Schedule-III, Part-I of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, as amended by Tamilnadu Act 13 of 2003, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and beyond the competency of State Legislature.
4. Similar averments have been made in the other writ petitions questioning lifetime tax.
5. Heard Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in person, Mr.R. Natesan, and Mr. M. Krishnappan, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General, Mr. A.L. Somayaji and Mrs. Bhader Syed, learned Additional Advocate Generals for respondents.
6. Mr.K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in person, has submitted that "Green Tax" for the object of eliminating pollution is not enumerated in the entries either under List-I or List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The residuary power of Taxation under Article 248(2) read with Entry 97 in List-I enables the Parliament alone to levy such "Green Tax" and it is therefore liable to be set aside for want of legislative competency.
7. Regarding levy of life tax for new registration of vehicles, Mr.K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.Natesan, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, have raised the following contentions.
(a)The levy of Motor Vehicle Tax, solely on the value of the vehicle alone, is not sustainable. The present Act which levies 6% of the total cost of the vehicle as life tax at the time of registration of the vehicle will have no relevance or nexus in levying the life tax. The same is arbitrary and beyond the leg islative competence of the State Legislature.
(b)Inasmuch as the Motor Vehicle Taxation has been held to be compensatory and the present levy will cease to be compensatory in character in so far as the levy is on the basis of the status of the owner or the nature of the vehicle or on the basis of the price or value of the vehicle. Therefore, the levy of life tax would be without jurisdiction.
(c) The levy is discriminatory, as it creates three different levy in respect of same class of motor vehicle which was used for a period of 15 years (life).
(d) The Act did not satisfy the test of reasonableness, as there is no justification for levying Rs.72,000/- for a period of 15 years towards motor vehicle tax, when the same is paid annually works out to Rs.12,000/-.
(e) Even though the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the provisions introduced for levying "lifetime tax" based on "weightcum-value" in the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, under the Act 27 of 1998 , the Supreme Court did not decide the point relating to same category of motor vehicle used for a period of 15 years, which suffered different rate of motor vehicle tax.
8. Learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals met all the points. In so far as challenge relating to life time tax, it is their contention that the issue has been covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. M. KRISHNAPPAN, reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 53.
9. Now, let us consider the challenge relating to "Green Tax" imposed under Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1
974. Section 3-A has been introduced by Act 13 of 2003 and came into force with effect from 01.08.2003. Section 3-A reads as follows:
"3-A. Levy of Green Tax:- (1) There shall be levied and collected an additional tax called "green tax", in addition to the tax levied under section 3, on the motor vehicles suitable for use on road, as specified in the Fourth Schedule for the purpose of implementation of various measures to control air pollution.
(2) The additional tax levied under sub-section (1) shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder excluding those relating to refund of tax shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the additional tax payable under subsection (1), as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of motor vehicles tax under this Act."
10. The rate of tax is mentioned in the Fourth Schedule, which reads as follows:
"1. Motor Vehicles other than a transport vehicle which has completed 15 years from the date of registration
(i) Motor Cycle Rs.500.00 (for five years)
(ii) Other Motor vehicles Rs.1000.00 (for five years)
2. Transport Vehicle which has Rs.500.00 completed 7 years from the (per annum) date of its registration (other than Autorickshaw)
11. The only contention of the petitioners is that the State is not competent to levy 'green tax', because the tax is levied for implementation of various measures to control air pollution and according to them, it is a law falling within the Union List.
12. It is the stand of the Government that the tax in this case is on the vehicle using the road and the tax is collected on a motor vehicle suitable for use on road as specified for the purpose of implementation of various measures to control pollution. This would not make the pith and substance of the levy of the 'green tax' as a tax falling within the subject "pollution". The incidence of taxation is on the use of the motor vehicles on the road and the fact that the amount is collected to take measure to control pollution is only incidental and the tax cannot be considered as a law on pollution. For instance, if a person is disqualified from holding a post of President of a Panchayat on the ground that he is declared as an insolvent, then it cannot be held that such restriction is a law on insolvent. This is because it only prescribes a disqualification on a president who is holding an office under the State Act. Even though the purpose is to take measures in public interest to control prohibition, but still it can be imposed only on a vehicle which uses the roads in Tamil Nadu.
13. This issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in STATE OF W.B. AND OTHERS v. PURVI COMMUNICATION (P) LTD., reported in (2005) 3 SCC page 711. In that case, an Entertainment Tax was levied on a multi system operator who exhibits the film through Cable TV Network under a Central Act. This levy was made under a State Act, namely, West Bengal Entertainment-cum-Amusement Tax Act. It was contended therein that it is a law falling under the Union Legislation, namely Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and that therefore the State Government cannot impose any tax. This plea was rejected. The following discussion and conclusion are relevant: (para 3 6, 37, 38 and
41) "36. Therefore, the respondents as a cable operator have direct and proximate nexus with the entertainments provided by them through their cable television network and, as such, they are the taxable person in respect of their gross receipts in relation to any month for providing entertainments to the individual viewers. Therefore, the respondents have a direct and proximate nexus with the entertainments presented to the viewers inasmuch as in terms of the respondent's agreement vide clause 4(d): "Recording and then retransmission of the signals by the franchisee is not allowed." That apart, the name of every subscriber having connection with the respondent's network must be on their records and the franchisee must furnish information of business honestly and completely to the respondents pursuant to clause 4(c) of the said agreement. In the event, any charge received from a subscriber is not paid to the respondent, the franchisee shall pay a sum equivalent to three times of the amount that the franchisee has saved by not paying the requisite amount to the respondents in respect of such subscriber.
37. In our view, the respondents as a cable operator, for the purpose of levy and collection of tax under sub-section (4-a) of Section 4-A of the Act have direct and close nexus with the entertainments made available to the viewer through their cable television network. The performance, film or programmes shown to the viewers through the cable television network come within the meaning of entertainments and therefore within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to make law for the levy and collection of tax on such entertainments.
38. A tax under Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution may be imposed not only on the person spending on entertainment but also on the act of a person entertaining, or the subject of entertainment. It is well settled by this Court that such tax may be levied on the person offering or providing entertainment or the person enjoying it. The respondents are admittedly engaged in the business of receiving broadcast signals and then instantaneously sending or transmitting such visual or audio-visual signals by coaxial cable, to subscribers' homes through their various franchisees. It has been made possible for the individual subscribers to choose the desired channels on their individual TV sets because of cable television technology of the respondents and of sending the visual or audio-visual signals to sub-cable operators, and instantly retransmitting such signals to individual subscribers for entertaining them through their franchisees. The respondents act is, no doubt an act of offering entertainment to the subscribers and/or viewers. The respondent is very much directly and closely involved in the act of offering or providing entertainment to the subscribers who are on his record. For the fact of offering or providing entertainment to the subscribers and/or viewers, the respondents receive charges, which are realised or collected by their franchisee from the ultimate subscribers. Their franchisee, called as sub-cable operator under the said 1982 Act having no independent role to offer or provide entertainments to the subscribers inasmuch as franchisees have to depend entirely on the respondents' communication network and this communication network of the respondents consists of receiving and sending visual images and audio and other information for preparation of the subscribers and/or viewers; without the communication network service of the respondents, no entertainments can be offered or provided to the subscribers and/or viewers.
39. In the tax matters, the State Legislature is free, if it has legislative competence, to choose the persons from whom the tax levied on entertainments is to be collected. In other words, what are taxed are the entertainments, which is very much within the ambit of Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. It is the respondents who as cable operator for the purpose of the said 198 2 Act are engaged in the business of providing or offering entertainments which include showing of films, various serials, cricket matches and dramatic performances to the subscribers, and the tax is imposed on the act of offering such entertainments in this way to such subscribers and/or viewers. The entire communication network service is built up and controlled by the respondents. Whatever amount is received or receivable by the respondent in respect of providing such entertainment is taxable under sub-section (4-a) of Section 4-A of the said 1982 Act which has a direct and sufficient nexus with the entertainment.
40. .....
41. We also see no substance in the submission that the impugned legislation impinges on the field occupied by the Central legislation. The aforesaid Central legislation has been enacted to regulate the operation of cable television network in the country and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto whereas the State legislation is for levy of entertainment tax on entertainment within the legislative field exclusively assigned to the State Legislature under Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Thus the objects sought to be achieved by two different Acts enacted under two different legislative fields exclusively assigned to the respective legislatures are entirely distinct and separate. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 of the Union Legislature does not denude the State Legislature of the power of levying entertainment tax on entertainment."
14. Without prejudice to the above stand, learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals submitted that the assumption that pollution law would fall within Union List and only the Central Government has power to legislate law on that subject does not appear to be right. It is submitted that the Supreme Court was concerned of the pollution caused by the Auto- Rickshaws in the City of Delhi and therefore directed the State Government to make it compulsory to fit CNG Converters to use Compressed Natural Gas in all public transport vehicles. In M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in 1998 (8) SCC Page 648), the Supreme Court observed that necessary subordinate rule or legislation should be enacted prohibiting the registration of any public transport vehicle to ply without catalytic converter. This direction was issued to a registering authority and therefore the law could be passed only by the State Government. As a matter of fact, Karnataka Government has issued a notification under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 directing all Auto-Rickshaws to convert into CNG vehicles within a particular time.
15. There is no entry in Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India regarding pollution, but the subject comes under Entry 6, Public Health, which is in the State list. Therefore, even assuming the law falls within the subject pollution, State Government would be competent to enact a law under Entry 6 of List II of State List. The submission of the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General are well founded.
16. It is also brought to our notice that Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was enacted by the Central Government. But, Central Government has no power to enact such law on the above subject. Yet the said Acts were enacted by the Central Government under Article 249 of the Constitution of India, which enable the Union to legislate on National interest even in respect of State list. This is made clear from the preamble of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The preamble of the said Act reads as follows:-
"WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment, with a view to carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution and for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto;
AND WHEREAS Parliament has no power to make laws for the States with respect to any of the matters aforesaid except as provided in Articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution;
AND WHEREAS in pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution resolutions have been passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures of the States of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tripura and West Bengal to the effect that the matters aforesaid should be regulated in those States by Parliament by law;"
17. From the above discussion, we conclude that, (1) the Notification under Section 3(A) is not a law relating to Pollution Control. It is a law pertaining to imposition of tax on a motor vehicle using Tamil Nadu roads which are old vehicles;
(2) the fact that the amount recovered are used for implementation of various measures to control pollution will not make the pith and substance of the amendment of the Act as one falling within Pollution;
(3) the Supreme Court itself has directed that necessary legislation and rules are to be issued to prevent motor vehicle causing pollution and such direction should be issued to the registering authority, which means that can be issued only by the State Government; and (4) the subject 'pollution' falls under Entry 6 of State List, namely "Public Health" and the Pollution Control Legislation are passed in National interest under Article 249 of the Constitution. In fact, a law has been enacted by the Central legislation in respect of Water and Air Pollution, but it does not take away the power of the State Government to legislate on the above subject. The power is still available under Entry 6 of List II State List, for State to legislate. Accordingly, we reject the contentions raised by Mr.Vijayan, learned Senior Advocate, relating to "Green tax".
18. Now, we shall consider the challenge relating to "lifetime tax". It would be useful to refer the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1974.
Section 2(3-A) defines life time tax.
"life time tax" means the tax leviable in one lump sum in advance for the life time of a motor vehicle."
Section 3 is a charging section. It runs as follows:
"Levy of Tax.
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) tax shall be levied on every Motor Vehicle used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu at the rate specified for such vehicle [in the First schedule or, in the Second schedule or in the Third Schedule, as the case may be].
(2) The Government may, by notification, from time to time, increase the rate of tax specified in the Schedules:
Provided that such increase, by notification, under this subsection shall not, in the aggregate, exceed fifty percent of the rate specified in the First schedule or, in the Second Schedule, or in the Third Schedule, as the case may be.
(3) All references made in this Act to the Schedules shall be considered as relating to the Schedule(s) as for the time being amended in exercise of the powers conferred by this section."
THIRD SCHEDULE (See Sec.4 (1-A) PART-I At the time of registration of new motor vehicles with effect from 1.7.1998 (Act 27 of 1998) Item (1) If the value of the vehicle is not more than Rs.5 Lakhs. If the value of the vehicle is more than Rs.5 Lakhs, but not more than Rs.10 Lakhs If the value of the vehicle is more than Rs.10 Lakhs "(1) Individual Rs.
(2)Others Rs.
(3)Individual Rs.
(4)Others Rs.
(5)Individual Rs.
(6)Others Rs.
(7)a.
Weighing not more than 700 kgs. Unladen 8210 16420 12320 24640 16420 32840 B Weighing more than 700 kgs. But not more than 1,500 kgs in weight unladen 10950 21900 16340 32860 21900 43800 C Weighing more than 1,500 kgs but not more than 2,000 kgs in weight unladen 13690 27380 20540 41080 27380 54760 D Weighing more than 2000 kgs but not more than 3000 kgs unladen 15060 30120 22590 45180 30120 60240 E Weighing more than 3000 kgs. Unladen in respect of which private transport vehicles permit is not required under Motor Vehicles Act 17110 34220 25670 51340 34220 68440 "THIRD SCHEDULE (See Section 4(1-A)) Part-1 New Motor Vehicles with effect from 1.8.2003 (Act 13/2003) Rate of Tax
1.At the time of registration.
6 percent of the total cost of the vehicle PART-II Old Motor Vehicles At the time of assigning new registration mark under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if the vehicle is registered on or after the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2003 and if its age from the month of such registration is:-
Rate of Tax
1.Not more than one year 5.75 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
2.More than one year but not more than two years 5.50 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
3.More than two years but not more than three years 5.25 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
4.More than three years but not more than four years 5.00 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
5.More than four years but not more than five years 4.75 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
6.More than five years but not more than six years 4.50 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
7.More than six years but not more than seven years 4.25 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
8.More than seven years but not more than eight years 4.00 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
9.More than eight years but not more than nine years 3.75 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
10.More than nine years but not more than ten years 3.50 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
11.More than ten years but not more than eleven years 3.25 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
12.MOre than eleven years but not more than twelve years 3.00 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
13.More than twelve years but not more than thirteen years 2.75 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
14.MOre than thirteen years but not more than fourteen years 2.50 per cent of the cost of the vehicle
15.More than fourteen years 2.25 per cent of the cost of the vehicle Explanation:- For the purpose of this Schedule, "Cost of the vehicle" means the cost of vehicle at the time of purchase, determined in such manner as may be prescribed."
19. We have already referred to the challenge relating to imposition of life time tax in the earlier part of our order. In reply to those contentions, learned Advocate General as well as the Additional Advocate Generals, by taking us through the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 53, -(State of T.N. v. M. Krishnappan), contended that the said decision covers all the contentions raised, including the validity of the life time tax based on the value of vehicles.
20. It is the claim of Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel as well as Mr.Natesan, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, that though an argument was advanced contending that the levy of tax based on value of the vehicle cannot be sustained, according to them, the said issue has not been dealt with by the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as the main issue revolves around the above referred decision of the Supreme Court, let us consider the factual aspects, contentions raised and the conclusion arrived at therein.
21. The question that arose for determination in that decision was whether "lifetime tax" leviable in lumpsum in advance for the " lifetime" of a motor vehicle (four wheeler) on the basis of the index of "weight-cum-value" ceases to be compensatory in nature, as held by the impugned judgment of this Court, dated 11.11.1999 in W.P.Nos.118 15, 15139 and others of 1999. It is to be noted that before this Court, the writ petitioners sought to challenge section 4(1-A)(a) read with Part-I Schedule-III of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 as amended. The first writ petition which was dealt with by this Court is W.P.No.15139 of 1998 filed by Mr.M. Krishnappan. The facts of the said case are as follows.
(a) Mr.M. Krishnappan, challenged the provisions of Section 4(1-A)(
a) imposing lifetime tax on motor vehicles to be registered on and after 1-7-1998 being the date on which the amending Act 27 of 1998 came into force. By the said amending Act, Section 3-A as also the aforestated Sections 4(1-A)(a), (b) came to be inserted in the said 1974 Act by which a dichotomy was created between the vehicles registered prior to 1-7-1998 (old vehicles) and the vehicles registered thereafter (new vehicles). In respect of the old vehicles, an option was given either to pay one-time tax or an annual tax, but in the case of new vehicles no such option was provided for and consequently, it became compulsory to pay one-time tax on and after 1-7-1998. At this stage, it may be stated that the respondent-Mr. M.Krishnappan, had purchased, on 23-9-1998. a passenger car "Tata Sumo", on payment of Rs.5,25,45 1, the unladen weight of which was 1700 kg on which he was charged a one-time tax of Rs.20,540.
(b) The impost was accordingly challenged as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, besides being inconsistent with the scheme of the 1974 Act. The main thrust of the challenge was that the levy of motor vehicle tax was compensatory in nature for the use of public road; that the wear and tear of such roads maintained by the State had relevance to the unladen weight of the vehicles and not to the value of the vehicle specified in Part I of the Third Schedule; that the value of the vehicle cannot constitute the basis for fixing the lifetime tax and that such value had no relevance with the maintenance of the roads and consequently the levy was arbitrary and unreasonable. The other incidental contentions were that by insertion of Section 4(1-A)(a) read with Part-I of Schedule-III to the Act, an inconsistency stood introduced in the said 1974 Act, as the pre-amended Act was based on the laden weight of the vehicle; that the said parameter continued to apply for vehicles registered before 1-7-1998; that the new index of "weightcum-value" was made applicable only to new vehicles; that the said index had no relevance to the use and maintenance of the road, that the differentia between old and new vehicles had no nexus with the wear and tear of the roads; that there was no difference between the two types of vehicles in terms of user of the roads; and that the State Legislature had committed a grave blunder in introducing Section 4(1-A)(a) making it compulsory for the registered owners of the new motor vehicles to pay one-time tax resulting in an unwarranted and unjustified increase in the payment of tax.
(c) In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, the levy was sought to be justified on the ground that w.e.f.1-4-1989, two-wheeler (non-transport)) vehicle were made to pay " lifetime" tax at the time of their registration by inserting an amendment to Section 4 of the Act, as Section 4(1-A).
(d) In view of the success of "lifetime tax" for twowheelers, the Government decided to introduce lifetime tax, without option, for four-wheelers, like cars and jeeps. (See Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Act 27 of 1998.) That option given to the said old vehicles was continued and the classification between old and new cars in the payment of "lifetime tax" was based on an intelligible differentia, hence, there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(e) By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the impugned amending Act 27 of 1998, which imposed the levy of lifetime tax based on the value of the vehicle registered on and after 1-7 -1998 was inconsistent with Section 4(1-A)(b); that prior to the amending Act 27 of 1998, the tax was levied only on laden weight and not on the value of the vehicle which had no nexus with the use of the roads; that by introducing the "value" as an index, the tax has ceased to be compensatory and consequently, the levy fell outside Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which in turn attracted Article 265 of the Constitution resulting in levy and collection of tax without the authority of law."
22. The following points were urged on behalf of the State before the Supreme Court: The concept of collection of one-time tax incorporated in Section 4(1-A(a) read with Schedule III (para I) of the 1974 Act has been upheld. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya (AIR 1988 SC 2062). It was urged that the index of "weight-cum-value" will not make the levy lose its regulatory and compensatory character. That, the mode of collection will not alter the nature of the levy under Section 3 of the said 1974 Act. That, imposition of tax depending on the status of the owner or the nature of the vehicle will not alter the nature of the levy. It was urged that continuance of the option to pay the tax annually or on one-time basis did not violate Article 14. According to the learned counsel, the State Legislature was competent to tax the vehicles, hence, the impugned impost fell under Entry 57 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
23. On behalf of the vehicle owners/assesees, it was submitted that collection of one-time tax based on the value of the vehicle in the garb of regulation had no nexus with the use and maintenance of roads; that, "value" had no connection with the costs or expenses of administration; that the impugned levy based on the status of the owner or the nature of the vehicle made the levy fall outside Entry 57 List II and the classification for the purposes of the said tax between the old and the new vehicles made the levy arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, it was submitted that no interference was called for with the impugned judgment.
24. After referring to the rival submissions, the Honourable Supreme Court referred to relevant provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 2, 3(1), 3(2), 4, Third Schedule Part-I, added by amending Act 27 of 1998 and framed the following questions for consideration.
"Whether the High Court was right in holding that with the introduction of the concept of "value" as the basis of the tax, the impugned levy fell outside Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution."
The Supreme Court has also framed a limited question i.e. whether the tax ceased to be compensatory and regulatory with the introduction of "weight-cum-value" index and whether the said index is contrary to the scheme of the said 1974 Act.
25. As observed earlier, we are duty bound to refer to the discussion and conclusion of Their Lordships on the above mentioned issues. (para 19, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28) "19. At the outset, it may be noted that depreciation is a function of time and maintenance. In the present case, we are concerned with the "lifetime tax" which is one-time payment spread over the economic life of the vehicle. The said tax is based on time, use and maintenance of the roads. As stated in the judgment of this Court in Bombay Tyre (AIR 1984 SC 420) any standard, which maintains a nexus with the essential character of the levy can be regarded as a valid basis for assessing the measure of the levy. Applying the said test to the present case, we hold that the index of "weight-cum-value" maintains the nexus with the essential character of the levy in question and, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that by introduction of the value of the vehicle as a parameter, the levy ceases to be regulatory and compensatory in nature. It is important to bear in mind that Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution refers to taxes on vehicles suitable for use on roads. Under the said entry, a field is provided to the State Legislature to impose the impugned tax in respect of every aspect of a vehicle. When the Constitution provides a field of legislation it has to be read in the broadest possible terms. When the State is empowered to levy taxes on goods it is empowered to levy such taxes on every aspect of such goods. Similarly, when the State is empowered to levy tax on the vehicle, it is empowered to levy tax on every aspect of the vehicle. Throughout the Constitution the legislative power relating to taxes and the legislative power relating to general subjects is treated separately and is not subsumed under a general head. Applying the above tests to the present case, we are of the view that the High Court had erred in holding that on account of introduction of "weight-cum-value" index in the Third Schedule to the Act, the impugned tax had ceased to be regulatory and compensatory and consequently, the said levy fell outside Entry 57 List II.
.....
22. In the present case we are satisfied that the levy in question being one-time tax continues to be a part of regulatory measure. For administrative reasons, in the matter of collection of tax, one-time payment of tax is administratively convenient and at the same time, it is also beneficial to the users of the vehicles who do not have to go to the office of the RTO every year to pay the annual taxes. It is also beneficial to the users of the motor vehicles, as they do not have to pay taxes at the increased rates from time to time over the economic life of the vehicle as contemplated by Section 3(2) of the Act. Moreover, weight alone may not provide a sufficient parameter/basis for imposition of "lifetime tax". As an illustration, we may point out that the weight of Honda CRV car is 1500 kg as against the weight of Tata Indigo GLX which weighs 1490 kg and yet the cost of Honda CRV is Rs.15,24,396 lakhs whereas the price of Tata Indigo is Rs.5,08,651 lakhs. Hence, weight index alone may not constitute the basis of "lifetime tax".
23. In the circumstances, we reiterate that introduction of "weight-cum-value" index will not make the levy non-regulatory/non-compensatory. Further, under the unamended 1974 Act, weight was the basis of the impugned levy as an annual tax. But with the introduction of a "lifetime tax", the entire future projection spread over the economic life of the vehicle had to be taken into account along with other factors like fall in the value of the rupee, inflation, rising costs of the material, cross-subsidy, etc., and consequently, it was necessary to introduce the new index of "weight-cum-value" and factors like paying capacity of the owner. In our view, these factors have nexus with the use of the roads over a period of time and hence, the impugned levy fell within Entry 57 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
24. We also do not find the impugned levy to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution as held by the High Court. In the case of Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai (1986) 3 SCC 20) this Court held that Article 14 forbids class legislation and not reasonable classification and in order to pass the test of reasonable classification, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or class of persons that are grouped together from the others left out of that group and that such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
....
27. There is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent herein that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by imposing higher burden of tax on vehicles owned by "others" vis-a-vis the vehicles owned by the "individuals" in Part-I of the Third Schedule. We do not find merit in this argument. Firstly, as held by this Court in the case of Bombay Tyre, levy is a constitutional concept, whereas collection of a tax as well as incidence of tax comes within the statutory measure. The mode of collection or the incidence of tax cannot be the conclusive test to decide the nature of the levy. The nature of the levy is a concept different from the mode of collection of tax. Levy is a constitutional concept whereas mode of collection of tax is a statutory concept. They stand on different footings. Secondly, it is important to remember the words of Lord Wilberforce, quoted with approval by the House of Lords in the case of Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd. v. Mawson ( Inspector of Taxes) (2005) 1 All ER 97) stating that, "a tax is generally imposed by reference to economic activities or transactions which exist in the real world".
When an economic activity is to be valued it is open to the lawmaker to take into account various factors including the paying capacity of the user, the value of the vehicle, the economic life of the vehicle, etc. Lastly, in the present case, for the vehicles registered before 1-7-1998 the option between annual and one-time tax is retained.
28. Before concluding, we may quote the observations of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Anas v. State of Kerala ((1999) 3 KLT 147) (to which one of us, Dr.AR.Lakshmanan, J, was a party), which state as under:
"A taxing statute can be held to contravene Article 14 of the Constitution only if it purports to impose on the same class of property similarly situated an incidence of taxation which leads to obvious inequality. It is for the legislature to decide on what objects to levy what rate of tax and it is not for the courts to consider whether some other objects should have been taxed or whether a different rate should have been prescribed for the tax. It is also to be noted that the legislature is competent to classify persons or properties into different categories and tax them differently, and if the classification thus made is rational, the taxing statute cannot be challenged merely because different rates of taxation are prescribed for different categories of persons or objects."
26. The conclusion of the Honourable Supreme Court is as under: (para 29) ` "29. For the aforestated reasons, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. As stated above, the impugned levy of lifetime tax is based on rational and reasonable classification founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object of the impugned levy."
27. The above referred decision makes it clear that the Supreme Court considered the main issue, namely, whether the introduction of the concept "value" as the basis of the tax and whether the tax ceased to be compensatory and regulatory with the introduction of "weight-cum-value" index and whether the said index is contrary to the scheme of 1974 Act. The Supreme Court has held that the index "weight-cum-value" maintains the nexus with the essential character of levy in question and disagreed with the contrary view taken by this Court. The Supreme Court has also disagreed with the view of this Court in holding that on account of introduction of "weight-cum-value" index in Third Schedule to the Act, the impugned Act ceases to be regulatory and compensatory and consequently the said levy fell outside the Entry 56 in List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Their Lordships agreed with the State's contention that the levy in question being one time tax continues to be a part of regulatory measure. Their Lordships also held that the new index "weight-cum-value" and factors like, paying capacity of the owner, have nexus with the use of roads over a period of time and hence the impugned levy fell within Entry 57 List-II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. By rejecting the contention relating to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, finally, the Supreme Court has concluded that the levy of life time tax is based on rational and reasonable classification founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object of the impugned levy. We are of the view that the said decision squarely applies and covers all the issues raised.
28. In addition to the same, learned Advocate General, by drawing our attention to the similar taxation provisions, namely, levy of life time tax for motor vehicles from Karnataka as well as Andhra Pradesh, contended that the Supreme Court has upheld similar action taken in those States. He also placed reliance on the entries in the Schedule appended to Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Amendment Act, 1997 (Karnataka Act 8 of 1997), which reads as follows.
"PART A5 [See Section 3(1)] Life Time Tax for Motor cars, Jeeps, Omnibuses and Private Service Vehicles Item No. Class of vehicles Motor cars and Jeeps not exceeding 800 cc Motor cars and Jeeps exceeding 800 cc but not exceeding 1500 cc Motor cars and Jeeps exceeding 1500 cc and above or attached with trailer Motor cars and Jeeps exceeding 1500 cc and cost of vehicle exceeds more than Rs.6 lakhs Omni buses, Private Service Vehicles having floor area upto 4 sq. mtrs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7A.
At the time of Registration of new vehicle 12000-00 18000-00 24000-00 45000-00 30000-00
29. Clause-6, namely, imposition of life time tax for motor cars and jeeps exceeding 1500 CC and cost of vehicle exceeding more than six lakhs was under challenge before the Karnataka High Court as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was also challenged on the ground that there was no rational basis for fixing higher tax liability. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by order dated 29.06.1999 held that the vehicle costing Rs.6 lakhs and above constituted a different class by itself and, therefore it cannot be said that there is discrimination in the levy of tax and therefore the provisions cannot be considered to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, the vehicle owner preferred Writ Appeal before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. By order, dated 23.02.2000 in Writ Appeal No.7000 of 1999, the Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge. The petitioner/ appellant, namely, Mohan Das N. Hegde, filed appeal before the Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court, by Judgment, dated 18.03.2005, in Civil Appeal No.7398 of 2000, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 64, following the judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Krishnappan (2005) 4 SCC 53, dismissed the civil appeal and confirmed the judgment of the High Court.
29. It is useful to elaborate the contentions raised before the Karnataka High Court and the issues raised before the Supreme Court. The appellant before the Supreme Court was the owner of "Opel Astra" which was taxed on "value" basis under 1997 Act. The said 1997 Act was challenged on the ground that the levy of "lifetime tax" on the value of the car exceeding 1500 cc was arbitrary, discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As said earlier, the said contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Even before the Supreme Court, an argument was advanced that the introduction of one more parameter, namely, the "value" of the vehicle, the impugned levy has ceased to be regulatory/compensatory in nature, as such a parameter has no nexus with the wear and tear of the public road. In the circumstances, it was urged that the impugned Act was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Repelling the said contention, the Honourable Supreme Court has concluded as follows: (para
6) "6.We do not find any merit in the above arguments. The above classification indicates a measure or a rate of tax applied differently on different vehicles depending upon various circumstances and so long as there is competence to levy and collect the tax under Entry 57 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the levy cannot be struck down only on the ground that the incidence of the tax falls differently on different categories of vehicles. The burden has to be distributed on different classes of vehicles or on different persons who owned the vehicles. How equitably such tax could fall on different persons is not for the Court to decide. Lastly, this matter is squarely covered by our judgment delivered today in the case of State of T.N. v. M.Krishnappan. (2005) 4 SCC 53.
7. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with no orders as to costs."
30. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the above judgment in Mohan Das N.Hegde case shows that an argument was advanced on behalf of the appellant/vehicle owner, that by introduction of one more parameter, namely, the "value" of the vehicle, the impugned levy has ceased to be regulatory/ compensatory in nature, as such the said parameter has no nexus with the wear and tear of the public road. With regard to the said argument, which finds place in paragraph 5 of the said decision, their Lordships have rejected the same in paragraph 6, by saying "We do not find any merit in the above arguments". We are satisfied that the Honourable Supreme Court not only followed the judgment in M.Krishnappan's case, but also considered the other relevant factor, namely, the "value" of the vehicle and rejected the contention raised by the appellant therein.
31. Learned Advocate General has also brought to our notice similar taxation measure by the Andhra Pradesh Government by way of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. The Third Schedule reads as under.
SCHEDULE-III A.P.MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT, 1963 THE THIRD SCHEDULE (See Second Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3) Sl.No.
Period/Class of vehicle Motor Cycles including Tri-cycles, Motor, Scooters & Cycles with or without attachment Vehicles not exceeding 60CC Vehicles exceeding 60 CC Invalid Carriage Cars and jeeps and other Non-Transport vehicles other than Omni buses not exceeding 2286 kgs in ULW Weighing not more than 500 kgs. ULW Weighing more than 500 kgs but not more than 1524 kgs ULW Weighing more than 1524 kgs but not more than 2286 kgs ULW Additional tax payable in respect of vehicles under columns 6 to 8 used for drawing trailers
-1
-2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 At the time of Registration of new vehicles 1,050 or 7% of the cost, whichever is higher 1,890 or 7% of the cost, whichever is higher 693/-
5,800 or 7% of the cost whichever is higher 10,080 or 7% of the cost whichever is higher 11,200 or 7% of the cost whichever is higher 2,604/-
32. The above mentioned third schedule was inserted by Act 23 of 19 95 and came into force with effect from 24.05.1995, in and by which, life tax had been increased from 5% to 7%. The said life tax introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Government was challenged in a batch of writ petitions, namely, W.P.No.3499 of 2000, etc. before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Similar contentions as urged in the cases of Krishnappan and Mohan Das N.Hegde were raised before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, having regard to the rival contentions advanced by both parties, framed the following question for consideration:
"Whether the impugned amendments to the extent they permit computation of life tax in respect of four wheelers other than chasis of motor vehicles and omni buses on the basis of the cost of those vehicles is unconstitutional, besides certain other subsidiary questions such as whether the impugned provisions are unconstitutional, ultra vires the power of the State Legislature and offe nd Articles 14 and 19(1)( g) of the Constitution, whether the levy of life tax is compensatory or regulatory in nature or ceases to be compensatory."
33. It is clear that the main thrust of the argument before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was relating to levy of tax based on the cost of the vehicles. The following conclusion of the Division Bench is relevant. (page 52) "In order to determine whether a tax is compensatory or not, what the Court has to see is whether what is required by way of tax is in truth and substance either a contribution towards the construction and maintenance of the roads, bridges and other facilities that are necessary for providing a smooth transport service or an exaction far in excess of what is needed for providing such facilities. Further, the Court cannot insist upon an exact correlation between the tax recovered and the cost so incurred because such exact correlation is in the very nature of things impossible to attain and impracticable to maintain. It is also well settled that the mere fact that a tax falls heavily on certain goods or persons may not always result in its invalidity, if it can be shown the tax so collected is used by the State for providing services to the tax payers. The levy of different rates of tax or different methods of tax ipso facto would not result in any hostile discrimination to attract the wrath of Article 14 postulates. In evolving different rates or method of tax, it is open to the law-maker to take into account the administrative convenience, convenience of the users of the facilities and such other considerations which are intended to reduce the administrative costs in collecting the taxes. It needs to be emphasised that the amount of wear and tear caused to the roads by any class of motor vehicles may not always be a determining factor in classifying motor vehicles for purposes of taxation."
34. Finally, rejecting all the contentions raised on the side of the vehicle owners, the Division Bench upheld the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1992 (Amendment Act 11 of 1992), and Amendment Act 23/1995, as constitutionally valid and dismissed all the writ petitions. The said decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court also supports the stand taken by the Government.
35. The Courts have permitted the legislatures to exercise an extremely wide discretion in classifying items for tax purposes, so long as it refrains from clear and hostile discrimination against particular persons or classes. Entry 57 of List II does not specify any base for taxation. Therefore, if more than one could be a basis, the legislature has the discretion and the latitude to choose any one of the permissible/available basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that the motor vehicles tax should be levied always on the basis of unladen weight and it cannot be on any other basis. To the same effect, matters have been disposed of by the Division Benches of Karnataka High Court vide Gajanan Motor Transport Co. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka - AIR 1991 Karnataka 40 and Mohan Das N.Hegde as well as the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.3499 of 2000, etc. Batch, dated 01.11.2002, with which we are in respectful agreement. We have already referred to the conclusion of the Supreme Court rejecting similar contentions.
36. In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the State Legislature has the power to fix motor vehicles tax as a percentage of the total cost of the vehicle and there is no prohibition under any law against the same. It is brought to our notice that several other States in India have been adopting this formula for several years. The contention of the petitioners that this levy which is based on the value of the vehicle has no relevance or nexus in levying life time tax cannot be accepted. It is futile to contend that the levy is arbitrary and beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The motor vehicle tax has been held as compensatory. The Government have explained in their counter affidavit that because of the increasing expenditure on the construction, improvement and maintenance of roads, it was announced in the budget to mobilize more resource to facilitate development and proper upkeep of the roads and infrastructure. In order to meet the increasing cost of road construction and maintenance, according to the State Government, such revision was notified. The following details have been furnished to demonstrate the receipt and expenditure on road construction. Receipt under Motor Vehicles tax 2002-2003 Rs.556.00 crores 2003-2004 Rs.692.00 crores Expenditure on Road Programme 2002-2003 2003-2004 (Estimated) Rs. Rs.
1.Improvement to roads, laying of new roads and 339.00 crores 794.60 crores construction of bridges. 2.Maintenance 228.50 crores 257.56 crores ------------------------------ Total 567.50 crores 1052.16 crores ------------------------------
37. We have already concluded that levy of lifetime tax on the basis of the "cost of the vehicle" will not alter the compensatory character of the motor vehicle tax. Therefore, the levy of lifetime tax on this basis is within the jurisdiction of the State Legislature. It is also brought to our notice, in respect of two wheelers levy of life time tax is based on the cubic capacity of the engine. Besides, in respect of stage carriages, the tax is collected with reference to seating capacity. The discussion also shows that the levy of motor vehicle tax as a percentage on the cost of the vehicle is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in character as alleged.
38. In conclusion, we do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions.
39. In the result, we hold that Section 4(1-A)(a), introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 27 of 1998, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 2003, by substituting Schedule-III, Part-I, of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 as it relates to levy of lifetime tax for new registration of vehicles and Section 3-A, levying Green Tax in respect of vehicles mentioned in Fourth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 are constitutionally valid. Consequently, we dismiss all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps., are closed.
25-08-2005.
P. SATHASIVAM, J., and AR. RAMALINGAM, J., After pronouncement of the above Common Order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed for reasonable time for payment of the difference amount. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted four months' time from to-day for payment of the difference of lifetime tax as per the amended provisions.
25-08-2005 R.B.
Index:- Yes Internet:- Yes To:-
1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport-I) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Regional Transport Officer, The Registering Authority, Mandaveli (Triplicane), Chennai.
3. The Regional Transport Officer, Vellore.


Ten Movies That Shook Wanniski
Memo To: Website browsers, fans & clients Author: Jude Wanniski http://www.polyconomics.com Re: #4 The Big Country
Continuing with the "movie list," here is number four of the ten films that most shaped my life. These are not my favorite films. They are the movies I've seen that have had the greatest influence on my thinking, my character, my life. Some are favorites that I enjoy watching over and over again, which you can tell as you read each entry. Try to think of your own experiences with films and how they influenced the course of your life. It makes life more interesting to be aware, as you live it, to know how things such as books and films and magazine articles alter your path in significant ways. Sometime last year the Sunday NYTimes "Arts and Leisure" section had a piece on how difficult it is to think of a movie that may have changed history. The only movie they could think of was a silent film by D.W. Griffith, Birth of a Nation, which had a scene about the KuKluxKlan that the author believes changed national thinking about the KKK. How silly. Each of the ten films listed here changed my history, and if I had not seen them, I would not have helped change history in the ways that I have. Films don't move masses. They move individuals who move masses.
4. "The Big Country" (1958) Another picture that I can watch at least once a year, never tiring of its strong men and beautiful women of the old west against gorgeous scenery and magnificent music. Gregory Peck and Charlton Heston are protagonists, with Chuck Conners thrown in for added manly tension. At another level there is the conflict between two older men, Burl Ives and Charles Bickford, ranchers who fight over the water of the Big Muddy. Jean Simmons and Carroll Baker are the beauties. Some critics saw this superb western as a metaphor for the Cold War, with Ives representing the proles, Bickford the capitalists. You can bear this in the back of your mind, although I didn't see it at first. The scene that most affected me, telling me it was okay to be a leader even if no one would follow, was Bickford riding into Blanco Canyon alone, when none of his men would follow him to what seemed certain death. Charlton Heston finally said "what the hell," and the rest came along too. It sounds like a man's movie, but it plays to all genders and ages.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service --------------------------------------------------------------------
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


|
CDS Calculator
|
|||
| Currency | |||
| Side | |||
| Notional(mm) | |||
|
|||
| Recovery Rate (%) | |||
| Fixed Coupon | |||
| CDS Spread (bps) | |||
| Upfront(%) | |||
|
|||
| Premium | |||
| Acc. Days | |||
| Dirty Price | |||
| DV01 | |||
| ISDA Standard Rate Crv | |||
| Settlement | |||
| Business Days | |||
| Valuation Date |


--- layout: project-page title: Game of Choice, Not Chance image: /assets/projects/thumbnail/webp/goc_thumbnail.webp.webp description: Narrative based mobile game on sexual and reproductive health and rights for adolescent girls. category: serious game, mobile game tags: [seriousgame, videogame, gamedesign] order: 2 ---
Game of Choice, not Chance, is a USAID-funded pilot program in India for urban and peri-urban adolescent girls
between the age of 15-19 to provide sexual and reproductive health knowledge through a narrative based video game
based on real life scenarios. In the game players chooses to play as a character which best represent their own
physical, demographic and psychographic manifestations and make choices for the character. This allows players to be
an active agent within the safe virtual environment, acquire knowledge, and negotiate on different topics with
different non playing characters (NPCs) as they navigate through the characters journey, make choices and see the
simulated outcomes of their choices.
This is a multi organizational collaboration project between different agencies for research, design, art and tech.
I worked as a Game Designer with Vihara Innovation Network, a design
consultancy studio, who lead the creative and design part of the project. My work involved designing tools for the
research, planing and conducting field research with other researchers, ideation and brainstorming with the team,
concept creation and contributing game design perspectives to the project.
This work is under NDA, to know more, please feel free to contact on mail.
Project website :   gameofchoicenotchance.com


Most questions I've asked at DBC thus far I've felt I did a relatively good job asking. One exception was asking a questions before I'd really thought about it, and so I felt pretty darn silly when the answer was quite obvious. Lesson learned: think before you ask! But a more tricky situation that arose was when I was trying to give feedback to the cohort about feedback. I posted something to the effect that the feedback I'd been reading was very formulaic and completely unspecific or frankly even completely useless.
When I provided the feedback, I stated what I had observed and provided a link to the resources at DBC for feedback. It turns out that this was perceived as being critical of, even "mean" to, my fellow cohort mates, which was definitely not my intention! I realized that phrasing really, really matters, to the point where someone else posted a rather lengthy reply to mine that several people had a discussion about it and stated that my comments were "unproductive". To be honest, I'm still a bit puzzled why it was taken personally, but I learned my lesson: pay attention to phrasing, and when offering feedback to a group, write it so that individuals are less likely to read it and interpret it as something written specifically to/about them and moreso about best practices; promote a proactive approach rather than admonishment.


AstuteZebra is a free and open-source blog base template. Please feel free to adapt it to your blog engine of choice.
Let's be totally honest here, modern web design in 2020 is an absolute travesty. Sure, some people are doing good work but most of the stuff that actual users see is an embarrassment to human decency. Sites are garish, infested with creepy ads, littered with unethical trackers, and bloated with buggy JavaScript files. AstuteZebra is a blog template for authors that actually care about their readers. It is simple, clean, and readable. Its not perfect but its close. Keep scrolling for more examples.
License Stuff
This theme is copyrighted by Jason Rigden in 2020 and is available under the MIT License. It includes the OFL fonts Poppins by Indian Type Foundry and Courier Prime from Alan Dague-Greene.
 But I can't give you this case, it don't belong to me.
You think water moves fast? You should see ice. It moves like it has a mind. Like it knows it killed the world once and got a taste for murder. After the avalanche, it took us a week to climb out. Now, I don't know exactly when we turned on each other, but I know that seven of us survived the slide... and only five made it out. Now we took an oath, that I'm breaking now. We said we'd say it was the snow that killed the other two, but it wasn't. Nature is lethal but it doesn't hold a candle to man.


| Session 1 status: |
| Session token: |
----- |
|
UP |
DWN |
LFT |
RGT |
A |
B |
C |
X |
Y |
Z |
ESC |
|
| Users: |
| -- |
Player one control:
| Session 2 status: |
| Session token: |
----- |
|
UP |
DWN |
LFT |
RGT |
A |
B |
C |
X |
Y |
Z |
ESC |
|
| Users: |
| -- |
Player two control:
Player Virtual Keyboard output: Not logged in
Session reset. Type "Yes" to restart session:


|
xpcc
|
Implementation of the Manual Single Mode. More...
#include <xpcc/architecture/platform/driver/adc/lpc/adc.hpp>
Public Types | |
| enum | StartCondition { StartCondition::START_NOW, StartCondition::START_PIO0_2, StartCondition::START_PIO1_5, StartCondition::START_CT32B0_MAT0, StartCondition::START_CT32B0_MAT1, StartCondition::START_CT16B0_MAT0, StartCondition::START_CT16B0_MAT1 } |
| Start condition of the ADC. More... | |
| enum | StartEdge { RISING, FALLING } |
| Public Types inherited from xpcc::lpc::Adc | |
| enum | ChannelMask { PIO0_11, PIO1_0, PIO1_1, PIO1_2, PIO1_4, PIO1_10, PIO1_11, CHANNEL_0, CHANNEL_1, CHANNEL_2, CHANNEL_3, CHANNEL_5, CHANNEL_6, CHANNEL_7 } |
| Channels which can be used as ADC input. More... | |
| enum | Channel { PIO0_11, PIO1_0, PIO1_1, PIO1_2, PIO1_4, PIO1_10, PIO1_11, CHANNEL_0, CHANNEL_1, CHANNEL_2, CHANNEL_3, CHANNEL_5, CHANNEL_6, CHANNEL_7 } |
Static Public Member Functions | |
| static void | initialize () |
| Initialise the ADC block in Manual Single Mode. | |
| static void | startConversion (ChannelMask channelMask, StartCondition startCondition=StartCondition::START_NOW, StartEdge startEdge=StartEdge::RISING) |
| Start a single conversion of the single selected channel. | |
| static bool | isConversionFinished (void) |
| Check if the conversion is finished. | |
| static uint16_t | getValue () |
| Get the latest value from the ADC from the global data register. | |
| static uint16_t | getValue (Channel channel) |
| Get the latest value from the ADC from the channel register. More... | |
| static bool | read (uint16_t &val) |
| static void | clearInterruptFlag (Channel channel) |
| Clear the interrupt flag of the given channel. | |
| Static Public Member Functions inherited from xpcc::lpc::Adc | |
| static void | configurePins (uint8_t channelBitmask=0xff) |
| Configure the selected channels as analog input. More... | |
Additional Inherited Members | |
| Static Protected Member Functions inherited from xpcc::lpc::Adc | |
| static uint32_t | getAdcRegister (Channel channel) |
| Read a ADC data register. More... | |
Use all the common features from Adc class.
|
strong |
Only in software controlled mode a start condition can be given. If the conversion is started manually with START_NOW only one conversion is made. If a hardware source as a start condition is selected repeated samples can be generated if this condition appears regularly (e.g. repeated timer match)
|
inlinestatic |
Clear the interrupt flag.


In order to guide visitors to your magazine, you can include a widget (or more) on any page on your website. You can find a number of example widgets below.
If you are interested in using a widget on your site,
we will gladly help you with adapting the widget
to meet your needs. Please contact your Styla account manager for more information on our widgets.
Classy, clean and compatible. The List features stories in a vertically positioned layout.
An alternative take on The List, features the same visually stunning layouts – now positioned horizontally.
Let this modern layout strike you not only with its looks, but also its versatility. It's the perfect alternative for giving your visual content the attention it deserves.
The Cards is a simple layout that's easy on the eyes. Its toned down aesthetic leaves room for your content to do the talking, and it blends well on a large variety of websites.


This week we've got more improvements and fixes in the core. We've also got some sweet new features for the validation library.
Validation
The validation library is almost ready for beta. We're really happy with how it has evolved and are grateful for the amazing feedback and contributions from the community, under the humble leadership of core team member Jeremy Danyow.
Some of the new features are:
- Add a new
changeOrBlur
trigger. - Enable specifying a validate trigger on individual bindings.
- Rule prioritization and bailing.
Changelog
As mentioned above, in addition to the validation feature updates, we continue to make improvements throughout all Aurelia libraries. You can read the detailed list of changes below.
aurelia-path 1.1.1 (2016-09-23)
Bug Fixes
- index: ensure new traditional param is marked as optional ( fc600e5 )
aurelia-router 1.0.5 (2016-09-29)
Bug Fixes
- typings: RoutableComponentCanActivate.canActivate should accept
Promise<navigationcommand>
as return type. ( 4460100 ), closes #401
aurelia-task-queue 1.1.0 (2016-09-29)
Features
- TaskQueue: expose flushing status ( fdf0bd7 )
aurelia-binding 1.0.6 (2016-09-29)
Bug Fixes
- AST: remove evalList array cache ( 73f1a3e ), closes #495
- observable: enable chaining, enumerating ( 6586cd2 ), closes #501
- ObserverLocator: use correct observer for aria role ( ca1dd60 ), closes aurelia/framework#582 #486
- Parser: fix object literal parsing with ( 52d01dd ), closes #502
- StyleObserver: enable !important override ( 0872d12 ), closes aurelia/templating-resources#251
aurelia-templating 1.1.1 (2016-09-29)
Bug Fixes
- BehaviorPropertyObserver: publish immediately when TaskQueue already flushing ( 06be105 ), closes aurelia/binding#496 aurelia/binding#479 #363
aurelia-validation 0.13.0
Bug Fixes
- ValidationParser: handle props that are only accessible via bracket syntax
Features
- validation-rules: permit uppercase email
- validateTrigger: add changeOrBlur trigger
- ValidateBindingBehavior: enable specifying validate trigger on individual bindings
- Validator: rule prioritization and bailing
- ValidationControllerFactory: add validator arg to createForCurrentScope
aurelia-skeleton-navigation 1.0.1
Bug Fixes
- Fix tslint config
- esnext-webpack: lock webpack version


Estimated Time Until Break
{{ breakTime | date: 'h:mm a' }} | {{minutesLeft}} minutes
Open app
Start Break


Working with cookies
Working with cookies can be a bit tricky in mod_lua on httpd 2.4.6 and below. Luckilly, here's a recipe for working with them:
function setCookie(r, key, value) r.headers_out['Set-Cookie'] = ("%s=%s;"):format(key, value) end function getCookie(r, key) local value = (r.headers_in['Cookie'] or ""):match(key .. "=([^;]+)") or "" return value end
With the introduction of r:getcookie and r:setcookie in the new 2.4.7 and further advancements in 2.4.9, working with cookies has gotten quite a bit easier:
function handle(r) local cookie = r:getcookie("foo") if not cookie then cookie = r:sha1(r.log_id .. r.clock()) r:setcookie{ key = "foo", value = cookie, secure = true } end r.content_type = "text/plain" r:puts("Your cookie is: ", cookie) return apache2.OK end


Setting Up Our Productive Environment
-
What tools will you use for your task board? We will be using Jira to maintain our task board. It can be found at https://scarb-dining-team-work.atlassian.net/jira/software/projects/SD/boards/1/backlog
-
What tools will you use for your burn-down chart? We will be mainitaining the burn-down chart manually through Excel.
-
Who will maintain the burn-down chart? We will be rotating the responsibility of maintaining the burn-down chart on a weekly basis, so that each member gets sufficient practice working with burn-down charts. Below is our schedule:
The developer responsible for handling the burndown chart for the week will maintain it by:Week Number Dates Member Week 1 June 23 - June 29 Harshit Week 2 June 30 - July 06 Jenisha Week 3 July 07 - July 13 Chandra Week 4 July 14 - July 20 Sumuhash Week 5 July 21 - July 27 Aaditya Week 6 July 28 - August 03 Harshit Week 7 August 04 - August 09 Jenisha - Observing the task board daily and reviewing the progress for the day
- Updating the information on the spreadsheet with the information for the day
- Plotting the new burndown chart for the progress that was made so far
-
What is every team member’s role? Developmental Roles Every member of our team will be a Full Stack Developer. As we mentioned in the first deliverable, we would like take this project as a good learning opportunity to learn everything we can from the type of development we are doing. In this role, each member will get the opportunity to develop using front-end and back-end technologies. I.e. a developer may be assigned a task that could be either front-end utilizing React JS, or a back-end task utilizing Node JS. Non-Developmental Roles The team will rotate on a weekly basis of who will attend meetings and take notes. On some weeks, 2 members of the team will attend the client meeting, and 2 different team members will attend the Friday meeting. Members who are attending will be chosen by the team based on availablity. During this meeting, the two members attendig must take notes and share with the other team members to keep them up to date.
-
What tools, if any, will you use for communication? Our main method of communication will be Facebook Messenger. Our secondary option will be Microsoft Teams. In the case of emergency we will be using phone or text.
-
When do you plan to meet in person? Due to the current situation with Covid-19, we will not be holding any in-person meetings. Instead we will hold virtual meeting through Facebook Messenger's video call functionailty. These meetings will be Mondays 1-3 pm and Wednesdays 3-6 pm. We will also be having daily stand-ups at 12pm everyday
-
How will you use your repository on GitHub?
The branching structure of our GitHub repo will consist of four main types of branches
- Master Branch: This branch contains production ready code.
- Dev Branch: This branch contains the code using dev environment variables.
- Feature X Branch: This branch contains the code specific to a user story/task and is branched from the Dev branch. It will follow the naming convetion: feature_<user_story_id>_<taskNumber>
- Hotfix X Branch: This branch contains fix for the bug corresponding to bug_id. For every bug discovered a card willbe added to our Jira board which will contain the bug_id of that bug. This branch also branches of the Dev branch The hotfix branch will follow the name convention: hotfix_<bug_id>
- Commits and Merges: When a developer commits any portion of code, the commits must be coherent and logically grouped. For example, 2 changes that are not related should not be grouped into a single commit and should be separated, however 2 changes that are part of the same change should be put into a single commit. Commits must also be small and logical, large commits tend to be difficult to read and follow and hence we will refrain from making such changes. Commit messages must succintly summarize what changes were made for other developers to understand the code at any point as well assist in debugging for any developer. Commit messages do not need to have any specific format as long as they allow other developers to understand changes that were made.
- Documentation and Style: Code style must follow React best practices and must be readable by other developers. Any code that is pushed onto the main remote repository must come with comments that describe the code and be properly documented for other developers to use.
The folder structure of our GitHub Repo will be the following:
- deliverables: This folder will contain directories for each of the 5 deliverables, following the naming convention: deliverable-<deliverable_num>. Each directory will have the files corresponding the that deliverable.
- feedback: This folder is used by the TA and Professor to provide feedback on the deliverables.
-
codebase: This folder will contain all code files for the project organized into
the following:
- client: Contains all the files required for the client side of the system, such as component files and redux.
- middleware: Contains all the code needed for the backend middleware used to control the access to protected routes
- models: Contains all the schemas used to read and store information in the database
- routes: Contains all the route code files used by the router
- README.md: The README will contain all information about the project and will be updated regularly so instructors as well as developers can be updated on the status of the project.
-
Which machines will be used for development by each team member? Chandra: Windows OS Jenisha: Windows OS Aaditya: Windows OS Harshit: Windows OS Sumuhash: Mac OS
-
What is your DoD (definition of done)? We have agreed upon the following criteria to determine whether a task is done:
- The feature from a user story has been developed and tested.
- The feature has met all required acceptance tests.
- The code has been reviewed by at least 2 members.
- The code has passed the Style checks.


Enum GraphOptions.SiblingPairs
Controls how sibling edge pairs (i.e., pairs consisting of an edge and its reverse edge) are handled. Layer types that define an interior (e.g., polygons) normally discard such edge pairs since they do not affect the result (i.e., they define a "loop" with no interior). The various options include:
enum SiblingPairs
: int { ... }
Enum members
| Name | Description |
|---|
DISCARD
Discards all sibling edge pairs.
DISCARD EXCESS
Like DISCARD, except that a single sibling pair is kept if the result would otherwise be empty. This is useful for polygons with degeneracies (S2LaxPolygonShape), and for simplifying polylines while ensuring that they are not split into multiple disconnected pieces.
KEEP
Keeps sibling pairs. This can be used to create polylines that double back on themselves, or degenerate loops (with a layer type such as S2LaxPolygonShape).
REQUIRE
Requires that all edges have a sibling (and returns an error otherwise). This is useful with layer types that create a collection of adjacent polygons (a polygon mesh).
CREATE
Ensures that all edges have a sibling edge by creating them if necessary. This is useful with polygon meshes where the input polygons do not cover the entire sphere. Such edges always have an empty set of labels.
If edge_type() is EdgeType::UNDIRECTED, a sibling edge pair is considered to consist of four edges (two duplicate edges and their siblings), since only two of these four edges will be used in the final output.
Furthermore, since the options REQUIRE and CREATE guarantee that all edges will have siblings, S2Builder implements these options for undirected edges by discarding half of the edges in each direction and changing the edge_type() to EdgeType::DIRECTED. For example, two undirected input edges between vertices A and B would first be converted into two directed edges in each direction, and then one edge of each pair would be discarded leaving only one edge in each direction.
Degenerate edges are considered not to have siblings. If such edges are present, they are passed through unchanged by SiblingPairs::DISCARD. For
SiblingPairs
:REQUIRE or SiblingPairs::CREATE with undirected edges, the number of copies of each degenerate edge is reduced by a factor of two.
Any of the options that discard edges (DISCARD, DISCARD_EXCESS, and REQUIRE/CREATE in the case of undirected edges) have the side effect that when duplicate edges are present, all of the corresponding edge labels are merged together and assigned to the remaining edges. (This avoids the problem of having to decide which edges are discarded.) Note that this merging takes place even when all copies of an edge are kept, and that even labels attached to duplicate degenerate edges are merged. For example, consider the graph {AB1, AB2, BA3, CD4, CD5} (where XYn denotes an edge from X to Y with label "n"). With SiblingPairs::DISCARD, we need to discard one of the copies of AB. But which one? Rather than choosing arbitrarily, instead we merge the labels of all duplicate edges (even ones where no sibling pairs were discarded), yielding {AB12, CD45, CD45} (assuming that duplicate edges are being kept).


Given training points $\boldsymbol{x}$, noisy targets $\boldsymbol{y}$, and domain $\boldsymbol{x}_*$, with $n$ the number of training points and $n_*$ the number of points in the domain, let $K(\boldsymbol{x},\space \boldsymbol{x_*})$ denote the $n \times n_*$ covariance matrix evaluated at all pairs of training and domain points.
To fit a GP, the following predictive distribution is computed:
$$ \begin{equation} \boldsymbol{\mu_*} = K(\boldsymbol{x}_*, \boldsymbol{x})\left[{K(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{x}) + \sigma_n^2I}\right]^{-1}\boldsymbol{y} \end{equation} $$
$$ \begin{equation} K_* = K(\boldsymbol{x}_*, \boldsymbol{x}_*) - K(\boldsymbol{x}_*, \boldsymbol{x})\left[{K(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{x}) + \sigma_n^2I}\right]^{-1}K(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{x}_*) \end{equation} $$
giving the final predictive posterior: $$ f(\boldsymbol{x}) \sim \mathcal{GP}(\boldsymbol{\mu_*},K_*) $$
Let's look at this in action. I'll create an objective function, take noisy samples, then fit a GP.
The objective function: $$ \begin{equation} f(x) = \sin{x} + \cos^2{x} \end{equation} $$
I'll use the periodic kernel with hyperparameters $\ell=1$, $\sigma=1.1$, and $p=2\pi$.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
from dillinger.gaussian_process import GaussianProcess
from dillinger.kernel_functions import PeriodicKernel
%matplotlib inline
sns.set(font_scale=1.3, palette='deep', color_codes=True)
np.random.seed(0)
# setting up the objective function
def objective_func(x):
return np.sin(x) + np.cos(x)**2
n_training_points = 10
x = np.linspace(0, 10, 100)
y_true = objective_func(x)
plt.plot(x, y_true, linestyle='dashed', linewidth=3, c='g')
plt.title('Objective function');
# plot the prior
GP = GaussianProcess(x, noise = .3, kernel_function='periodic', kernel_args={'ell': 1, 'p': np.pi*2, 'sigma': 1.1})
GP.plot()
plt.plot(x, y_true, linestyle='dashed', linewidth=3, c='g', label='True objective')
plt.legend()
plt.title('Regression example (prior)');
The plot of the GP shows the mean in black, along with confidence intervals in purple. The plot above shows a blank prior.
# create random observations with noisy targets
x_train = 10*np.random.rand(n_training_points)
y_train = objective_func(x_train) + .3*np.random.randn(n_training_points)
x_train.shape = -1, 1
y_train.shape = -1, 1
plt.plot(x, y_true, linestyle='dashed', linewidth=3, c='g', label='true objective')
plt.scatter(x_train, y_train, c='r', label='noisy observations')
plt.legend();
# and the posterior
GP.fit(x_train, y_train)
GP.plot()
plt.plot(x, y_true, linestyle='dashed', linewidth=3, c='g', label='True objective')
plt.legend()
plt.title('Regression example (posterior)');
The model object remembers data points it's already seen, so it's easy to continue to make observations and fit the posterior.
# perform more function evals and update the GP
x_train_new = 10*np.random.rand(n_training_points)
y_train_new = objective_func(x_train_new) + .3*np.random.randn(n_training_points)
x_train_new.shape = -1, 1
y_train_new.shape = -1, 1
# simply call the fit method again and pass in the new data points
GP.fit(x_train_new, y_train_new)
GP.plot()
plt.plot(x, y_true, linestyle='dashed', linewidth=3, c='g', label='True objective')
plt.legend()
plt.title('Regression example (posterior)');
If you have an idea of what hyperparameters you'd like, you can pass these directly into the GP, as in the obove example
GP = GaussianProcess(x, kernel_function='periodic', kernel_args={'ell': 1, 'p': np.pi*2, 'sigma': 1.1})
If you are using the Squared Exponential or Periodic kernels, there is support for automatic hyperparameter selection:
kernel = PeriodicKernel
GP = GaussianProcess(x, noise=.3, kernel_function=kernel)
GP.fit(x_train, y_train)
GP.plot()
plt.plot(x, y_true, linestyle='dashed', linewidth=3, c='g', label='True objective')
plt.legend()
plt.title('Regression example w/automatic hyperparameter tuning');


particle_size_models.Model.update_properties¶
-
Model.
update_properties
(self, profile, oil_mixture, m_mixture, z0, Tj=None)[source]¶ Set the thermodynamic properties of the released and receiving fluids
Store the density, viscosity, and interfacial tension of the fluids involved in a jet breakup scenario.
- Parameters
- profileambient.Profile object
Profile containing ambient CTD data
- oil_mixturedbm.FluidMixture object
A dbm.FluidMixture object that contains the chemical description of an oil mixture.
- m_mixturendarray
An array of mass fluxes (kg/s) of each pseudo-component in the live-oil mixture.
- z0float
Release point of the jet orifice (m)
- Tjfloat
Temperature of the released fluids (K)
Notes
This method allows the complete release to be redefined. If you only want to update the release depth or release temperature, use .update_z0() or update_Tj(), instead.


NEWS.md
Remove old src/init.c partially manual registration.
Updated Mapbox earcut.hpp source (to commit 6d18edf0ce046023a7cb55e69c4cd9ba90e2c716). See inst/earcut_source.R.
Created decido.hpp header file for linking from other packages, contributed by David Cooley.
Updated minimum R version to 3.2.5, after actually checking.
Increased automated test coverage of underlying library code.
Fixed a memory bug, thanks to CRAN checks.
Cleaned up some Rcpp defaults.
Updated readme.
Move oz to Suggests.
Modified description based on advice from CRAN.
earcut
is now generic, with a default argument that operates on matrix, list or data frame inputs - future extensions may dispatch on class of single xy argument.
Breaking change, all R functions now have xy
as first argument, no more x
or y
as separate vectors. xy maybe a matrix, a list, or a dataframe.
Added a vignette and more complete documentation.
Added helper functions plot_holes
and plot_ears
to wrap calls to polypath for polygon plot and triangle plot respectively, using the same style as function earcut
.
Modified to use 1-based indexing always at R level, and wrapped internal function earcut_cpp with R level earcut
with checks on inputs.
Removed need for numholes
argument.
Fixed immense logic bug, not sure how it was working at all before.
Fixed file naming and declarations, thanks to Andrew Smith.
Added support for holes via earcut(x, y, holes = , numholes = )
.
First implementation from basic template.


PxRigidActor represents a base class shared between dynamic and static rigid bodies in the physics SDK. More...
#include <PxRigidActor.h>
Public Member Functions | |
| virtual void | release ()=0 |
| Deletes the rigid actor object. More... | |
Global Pose Manipulation | |
| virtual PxTransform | getGlobalPose () const =0 |
| Retrieves the actors world space transform. More... | |
| virtual void | setGlobalPose (const PxTransform &pose, bool autowake=true)=0 |
| Method for setting an actor's pose in the world. More... | |
Shapes | |
| virtual bool | attachShape (PxShape &shape)=0 |
| virtual void | detachShape (PxShape &shape, bool wakeOnLostTouch=true)=0 |
| virtual PxU32 | getNbShapes () const =0 |
| Returns the number of shapes assigned to the actor. More... | |
| virtual PxU32 | getShapes (PxShape **userBuffer, PxU32 bufferSize, PxU32 startIndex=0) const =0 |
| Retrieve all the shape pointers belonging to the actor. More... | |
| Public Member Functions inherited from PxActor | |
| virtual PxActorType::Enum | getType () const =0 |
| Retrieves the type of actor. More... | |
| virtual PxScene * | getScene () const =0 |
| Retrieves the scene which this actor belongs to. More... | |
| virtual void | setName (const char *name)=0 |
| Sets a name string for the object that can be retrieved with getName(). More... | |
| virtual const char * | getName () const =0 |
| Retrieves the name string set with setName(). More... | |
| virtual PxBounds3 | getWorldBounds (float inflation=1.01f) const =0 |
| Retrieves the axis aligned bounding box enclosing the actor. More... | |
| virtual void | setActorFlag (PxActorFlag::Enum flag, bool value)=0 |
| Raises or clears a particular actor flag. More... | |
| virtual void | setActorFlags (PxActorFlags inFlags)=0 |
| sets the actor flags More... | |
| virtual PxActorFlags | getActorFlags () const =0 |
| Reads the PxActor flags. More... | |
| virtual void | setDominanceGroup (PxDominanceGroup dominanceGroup)=0 |
| Assigns dynamic actors a dominance group identifier. More... | |
| virtual PxDominanceGroup | getDominanceGroup () const =0 |
| Retrieves the value set with setDominanceGroup(). More... | |
| virtual void | setOwnerClient (PxClientID inClient)=0 |
| Sets the owner client of an actor. More... | |
| virtual PxClientID | getOwnerClient () const =0 |
| Returns the owner client that was specified with at creation time. More... | |
| virtual PxAggregate * | getAggregate () const =0 |
| Retrieves the aggregate the actor might be a part of. More... | |
| Public Member Functions inherited from PxBase | |
| virtual const char * | getConcreteTypeName () const =0 |
| Returns string name of dynamic type. More... | |
| template<class T > | |
| T * | is () |
| template<class T > | |
| const T * | is () const |
| PX_FORCE_INLINE PxType | getConcreteType () const |
| Returns concrete type of object. More... | |
| PX_FORCE_INLINE void | setBaseFlag (PxBaseFlag::Enum flag, bool value) |
| Set PxBaseFlag. More... | |
| PX_FORCE_INLINE void | setBaseFlags (PxBaseFlags inFlags) |
| Set PxBaseFlags. More... | |
| PX_FORCE_INLINE PxBaseFlags | getBaseFlags () const |
| Returns PxBaseFlags. More... | |
| virtual bool | isReleasable () const |
| Whether the object is subordinate. More... | |
Constraints | |
| virtual PxU32 | getNbConstraints () const =0 |
| Returns the number of constraint shaders attached to the actor. More... | |
| virtual PxU32 | getConstraints (PxConstraint **userBuffer, PxU32 bufferSize, PxU32 startIndex=0) const =0 |
| Retrieve all the constraint shader pointers belonging to the actor. More... | |
| PX_INLINE | PxRigidActor (PxType concreteType, PxBaseFlags baseFlags) |
| PX_INLINE | PxRigidActor (PxBaseFlags baseFlags) |
| virtual | ~PxRigidActor () |
| virtual bool | isKindOf (const char *name) const |
| Returns whether a given type name matches with the type of this instance. More... | |
Additional Inherited Members | |
| Public Attributes inherited from PxActor | |
| void * | userData |
| user can assign this to whatever, usually to create a 1:1 relationship with a user object. More... | |
| Protected Member Functions inherited from PxActor | |
| PX_INLINE | PxActor (PxType concreteType, PxBaseFlags baseFlags) |
| PX_INLINE | PxActor (PxBaseFlags baseFlags) |
| virtual | ~PxActor () |
| Protected Member Functions inherited from PxBase | |
| PX_INLINE | PxBase (PxType concreteType, PxBaseFlags baseFlags) |
| Constructor setting concrete type and base flags. More... | |
| PX_INLINE | PxBase (PxBaseFlags baseFlags) |
| Deserialization constructor setting base flags. More... | |
| virtual | ~PxBase () |
| Destructor. More... | |
| template<class T > | |
| bool | typeMatch () const |
| Protected Attributes inherited from PxBase | |
| PxType | mConcreteType |
| PxBaseFlags | mBaseFlags |
PxRigidActor represents a base class shared between dynamic and static rigid bodies in the physics SDK.
PxRigidActor objects specify the geometry of the object by defining a set of attached shapes (see PxShape).
|
inlineprotected |
|
inlineprotected |
|
inlineprotectedvirtual |
|
pure virtual |
attach a shared shape to an actor
This call will increment the reference count of the shape.
Attaching a triangle mesh, heightfield or plane geometry shape configured as eSIMULATION_SHAPE is not supported for non-kinematic PxRigidDynamic instances.
Sleeping: Does NOT wake the actor up automatically.
| [in] | shape | the shape to attach. |
Referenced by PxRigidActorExt::createExclusiveShape().
|
pure virtual |
detach a shape from an actor.
This will also decrement the reference count of the PxShape, and if the reference count is zero, will cause it to be deleted.
Sleeping: Does NOT wake the actor up automatically.
| [in] | shape | the shape to detach. |
| [in] | wakeOnLostTouch | Specifies whether touching objects from the previous frame should get woken up in the next frame. Only applies to PxArticulation and PxRigidActor types. |
|
pure virtual |
Retrieve all the constraint shader pointers belonging to the actor.
You can retrieve the number of constraint shader pointers by calling getNbConstraints()
Note: Removing constraint shaders with PxConstraint::release() will invalidate the pointer of the released constraint.
| [out] | userBuffer | The buffer to store the constraint shader pointers. |
| [in] | bufferSize | Size of provided user buffer. |
| [in] | startIndex | Index of first constraint pointer to be retrieved |
|
pure virtual |
Retrieves the actors world space transform.
The getGlobalPose() method retrieves the actor's current actor space to world space transformation.
Referenced by PxShapeExt::getGlobalPose().
|
pure virtual |
Returns the number of constraint shaders attached to the actor.
You can use getConstraints() to retrieve the constraint shader pointers.
|
pure virtual |
Returns the number of shapes assigned to the actor.
You can use getShapes() to retrieve the shape pointers.
|
pure virtual |
Retrieve all the shape pointers belonging to the actor.
These are the shapes used by the actor for collision detection.
You can retrieve the number of shape pointers by calling getNbShapes()
Note: Removing shapes with PxShape::release() will invalidate the pointer of the released shape.
| [out] | userBuffer | The buffer to store the shape pointers. |
| [in] | bufferSize | Size of provided user buffer. |
| [in] | startIndex | Index of first shape pointer to be retrieved |
|
inlineprotectedvirtual |
Returns whether a given type name matches with the type of this instance.
Reimplemented from PxActor.
Reimplemented in PxRigidBody, PxRigidDynamic, PxArticulationLink, and PxRigidStatic.
References PxActor::isKindOf().
Referenced by PxRigidStatic::isKindOf(), and PxRigidBody::isKindOf().
|
pure virtual |
Deletes the rigid actor object.
Also releases any shapes associated with the actor.
Releasing an actor will affect any objects that are connected to the actor (constraint shaders like joints etc.). Such connected objects will be deleted upon scene deletion, or explicitly by the user by calling release() on these objects. It is recommended to always remove all objects that reference actors before the actors themselves are removed. It is not possible to retrieve list of dead connected objects.
Sleeping: This call will awaken any sleeping actors contacting the deleted actor (directly or indirectly).
Calls PxActor::release() so you might want to check the documentation of that method as well.
Implements PxActor.
Implemented in PxArticulationLink.
|
pure virtual |
Method for setting an actor's pose in the world.
This method instantaneously changes the actor space to world space transformation.
This method is mainly for dynamic rigid bodies (see PxRigidDynamic). Calling this method on static actors is likely to result in a performance penalty, since internal optimization structures for static actors may need to be recomputed. In addition, moving static actors will not interact correctly with dynamic actors or joints.
To directly control an actor's position and have it correctly interact with dynamic bodies and joints, create a dynamic body with the PxRigidBodyFlag::eKINEMATIC flag, then use the setKinematicTarget() commands to define its path.
Even when moving dynamic actors, exercise restraint in making use of this method. Where possible, avoid:
Sleeping: This call wakes dynamic actors if they are sleeping and the autowake parameter is true (default).
| [in] | pose | Transformation from the actors local frame to the global frame. Range: rigid body transform. |
| [in] | autowake | whether to wake the object if it is dynamic. This parameter has no effect for static or kinematic actors. If true and the current wake counter value is smaller than PxSceneDesc::wakeCounterResetValue it will get increased to the reset value. |


Demographic Information Bus Routes
Travel Time Comparisons Heat Map
Zip Code: 32603 Population: 6,741 Median Age: 21.1 Number of Houses: 2,422 Median Income: $20,080 Below Poverty Line: 54.50%
Zip Code: 32605 Population: 22,925 Median Age: 40 Number of Houses: 10,459 Median Income: $69,264 Below Poverty Line: 12.10%
Zip Code: 32606 Population: 21,833 Median Age: 36.8 Number of Houses: 10,600 Median Income: $59,122 Below Poverty Line: 10.10%
Zip Code: 32607 Population: 29,750 Median Age: 25.1 Number of Houses: 14,802 Median Income: $33,724 Below Poverty Line: 35.40%
Zip Code: 32608 Population: 45,842 Median Age: 28 Number of Houses: 23,245 Median Income: $40,465 Below Poverty Line: 29.40%
Zip Code: 32609 Population: 18,756 Median Age: 36.1 Number of Houses: 7,999 Median Income: $28,569 Below Poverty Line: 32.80%
Zip Code: 32641 Population: 14,291 Median Age: 34.9 Number of Houses: 5,290 Median Income: $30,091 Below Poverty Line: 32.80%
Zip Code: 32653 Population: 13,107 Median Age: N/A Number of Houses: 6,085 Median Income: $64,570 Below Poverty Line: N/A
Select a starting location


Resources for beggining with OpenGL (self.programming)
submitted 6 hours ago by lytfyre
My favourite string for testing web applications (blog.cherouvim.com)
submitted 6 hours ago by cherouvim
Incredibly useful SSH flag | Surfing in Kansas (ericholscher.com)
submitted 6 hours ago by forsaken
Consolas is the most beautiful programming font I have seen. (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 7 hours ago by FlySwat
Berkeley Professors: Cloud Computing Is Ready To Explode (eecs.berkeley.edu)
submitted 8 hours ago by electric_mouse
Comparison of functional dependencies and type families (haskell.org)
submitted 8 hours ago by dons
BashForth: Forth in 3444 Lines of Shell Code (forthfreak.net)
submitted 8 hours ago by keenerd
jQuery 1.3.2 Alpha Released - IE Fixes In The Spotlight (opensourcereleasefeed.com)
submitted 8 hours ago by volume4
Android Market opening up for paid apps - show off your apps! (self.programming)
submitted 8 hours ago by r0swell
Stick to your new year goals with a cool web goal tracker (goalsontrack.com)
submitted 9 hours ago by gekofish
How to Activate Windows XP without Product Key (gupshupblog.com)
submitted 9 hours ago by vistahacked