2 kids buried alive in classroom as wall collapses

Ujire, May 7: A child was killed and four people were injured after a car they were travelling in rammed a stationary truck near Ujire, on Tuesday night.

The deceased is nine-month-old Madhavi, the daughter of Pramod, a resident of Panyalu Ujire.

Pramod, his wife Ashwini and relatives Mamatha and Swati, have been grievously injured in the incident, and are being treated in a private hospital.

The incident took place around 11pm. According to police, the victims had gone to a relative’s house at Vamadapadavu. On reaching Ujire, Pramod wanted to stop the car beside the road, but failed to notice the stationary truck.

The car was completely mangled as a result of the impact. A case has been registered at the Dharmasthala police station in this regard.

Mangaluru, Jun 29: As many as 49 fresh covid-19 cases were reported in Dakshina Kannada district in past 24 hours taking the district’s tally to 568.

At the same time 38 persons were also discharged from the hospital after complete recovery from covid 19.

Out of the 49 positive cases, 14 persons had returned from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. 17 persons had contracted the disease from patient number 9590. 3 persons are suffering from an influenza-like illness (ILI), and 4 persons are suffering from Severe Acute Respiratory Infection.

The health officials are tracing the contacts of six others. All the 49 persons have been shifted to hospital for treatment. Most of them are said to be asymptomatic.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.