Bengaluru Muslim cleric picked up by police; terror link rumours erupt

Bengaluru, May 30: Bengaluru City civic body Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on the food delivery startup Swiggy for irresponsible disposal of waste, an official said on Friday.

"Thinking of food is great - Swiggy. Hope you also think of segregating waste and disposing of it responsibly," tweeted BBMP Solid Waste Management Special Commissioner D. Randeep.

Randeep said a penalty of Rs 50,000 was imposed on Swiggy Kitchen at Katriguppe in the city for the violation.

"The incident with respect to waste segregation has been brought to our notice and happened at one of our kitchens in Bengaluru," confirmed a Swiggy spokesperson to IANS without revealing the exact details.

He said the startup is aware of its civic responsibility and has stringent processes to ensure high standards of compliance.

"While we investigate and rectify the root cause of the matter, we are reinforcing necessary awareness on the best practices to be followed amongst our teams and partner network to ensure complete compliance with waste management," the spokesperson added.

Swiggy has been penalised earlier as well for its irresponsible disposal of waste.

Recently, the BBMP’s solid waste management department has also fined an apartment complex Rs 15,000 for not segregating waste into dry, wet and reject categories.

Waste disposal norms for apartments

"Segregation of waste is mandatory in apartments. Onus of enforcing segregation rules lies on the (apartment) association and waste should be segregated as dry, wet and reject," said Randeep.

InClover Grand Apartments at Baiyappanhalli was penalised for the offence of improper waste disposal. Similarly, BBMP marshals also caught and fined some people openly discarding waste in public spaces.

"Dear citizens, please change your old habits. Our marshals are watching and will fine those who throw garbage in public spaces," BBMP Special Commissioner Randeep said.

He shared the photographs of two scooter-borne individuals being caught in the act and penalised at Kuvempunagar in Bengaluru.

With the steep hike in excise duty in the past couple of months, an average consumer of petrol now pays over 275% in taxes to centre and states on a litre of the fuel.  The base price of petrol is just about Rs 18. The taxes are close to Rs 50 and the pump price is over Rs 72.

India imports 85% of all its crude oil demand.  After a steep hike in excise duty in the past two months despite a hold on daily price revisions by the oil public sector undertakings (PSUs), Indian consumers now pay 275% collectively in excise duty to state and centre. 

The central government hiked excise on petrol and diesel by Rs 10 and Rs 13 respectively last month. The excise duty on petrol is taxed around Rs 33-a-litre while the same on diesel it is Rs 32.

The Value-Added Tax (VAT) on both petrol and diesel is Rs 16.44 and Rs 16.26 respectively. Both the taxes together are around Rs 49 while it is sold at petrol pumps at 73-per-litre.

These two taxes cumulatively account for 69% of tax which is higher than anywhere else in the world. The same is taxed at 19% in the US, 47% in Japan, UK 62% and 63% in France. The government does not pass on the benefit of lower crude oil prices to the customer.

It is to be noted that Indian consumers continued to pay Rs 70-a-litre even when crude oil prices hit a paltry US $ 20-a-barrel on April 12.

Former finance minister and Congress leader recently took a jab at the Centre over rising prices stating, “Fuel selling prices raised twice in two days, following tax hikes two weeks ago. This time to benefit oil companies. Government is poor, it needs more taxes. Oil companies are poor, they need better prices. Only the poor and middle class are not poor, so they will pay”.

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.