Ambulance ferries liquor, belly dancers perform at govt medical college in Yogi's UP

Mangaluru, May 20: The Third Vande Bharat Mission flight carrying 63 repatriates from Muscat landed at Mangaluru International Airport at 8.35 pm on Wednesday. It was piloted by Mangalurean captain Michael Saldanha.

More than half of the passengers from Muscat alighted in Bengaluru where the flight landed first. Remaining 63 passengers came to Mangaluru. 

After landing, all the passengers were given health kits, food and mobile SIMs, and arrangements were made to change their currency at the airport. 

A health department team screened each passenger, after which emigration formalities were completed. Their throat swab samples will be tested for Covid-19 on Thursday.

Union fertiliser minister D V Sadananda Gowda tweeted on Wednesday that the next Vande Bharat Mission flight is scheduled on Friday from Doha to Mangaluru. The flight will land at Mangaluru at 9.55 pm. 

The third repatriation flight from Dubai to Mangaluru is scheduled on Saturday. It will first land at Bengaluru and later fly to Mangaluru. However, there are no flights from Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to Mangaluru.

Thieves broke into an MSIL liquor outlet at Kuthar Nityanandanagara on the outskirts of Mangaluru and decamped with liquor worth Rs 1 lakh. The incident came to light on Friday morning. 

The outlet belongs to Purushotham Pilar. 

Before committing the crime, the thieves had hung a cloth in front of the shop shutter of the outlet to ensure that no one could notice the crime. They also stole DVR of the CCTV the was installed. 

On noticing that outlet was open, many people had even come to purchase liquor. The police took all those who had visited the outlet to purchase to the task and chased them away.

The thieves also stole 10 packets of cigarettes from a paan shop situated adjacent to the MSIL outlet.

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.