7 held for blackmailing bank manager after forcing him to pose with girl

Mangaluru, May 26: Days after the government of India approved the use of chartered flights for the repatriation of Indians stranded across the world amidst covid-19 lockdown, two NRI entrepreneurs in Saudi Arabia have offer to bear the cost of repatriation if they get formal green signal to repatriate stranded Indians from Dammam to Mangaluru International Airport before June 5.

Althaf Ullal and Basheer Sagar, the two Kannadiga Directors of Al Khobar-based Saqco, have made this offer in a letter written to Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and Union Civil Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri.

The duo have assured that their company will bear the cost of the first chartered flight from Dammam to Mangaluru if the government paves way for its operation by June 5. 

It is learnt that many private airliners have come forward to operate chartered flight and are waiting for final clearance from the government. It will cost approximately Rs 45 lakh to hire chartered flight with 180 capacity from Dammam to Mangaluru. 

Pregnant women, medical emergency cases, senior citizens on visit visas, those who lost jobs due to lockdown among other stranded Indians will be given priority in this flight, they said.

"Our company will completely bear this cost. Passengers only need to bear the cost of institutional quarantine after reaching Mangaluru," they have clarified. 

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.