BJP: Priyank Kharge insulted Siddaganga swamiji

Gadag, May 9: It is the month of April, and the season of mangoes is very much here. However, the mango farmers of Gadag are suffering huge losses amid the coronavirus lockdown due to the absence of transportation facilities along with several other issues that have been impacting their business adversely.

Speaking to media persons, Vishwanath Odugowdar, a mango farmer said, "Due to transportation problems we are not being able to export mangoes to different countries. We are trying to sell them in nearby markets."

"We are not in a situation to pack, transport and export the mangoes to different countries as we did earlier especially 
when it comes to Alphonso mangoes which is one of the most loved varieties. So, we are packing mangoes at our place. Somehow this year we have got very good quality of mangoes," he added.

Farmers here are incurring huge losses as mandis and markets across the country are shut while the transport of Alphonso mangoes has also come to a halt owing to the lockdown.

The small and medium scale farmers in places like Gadag, Dharwad, Bagalkote in north Karnataka have started packing the mangoes themselves in their farms in a bid to sell the fruit themselves.

Mangaluru, Mar 29: The second day of a total clampdown by Dakshin Kannada district had no impact as panic-stricken people rushed to buy essential commodities in markets in the City on Sunday without caring for Social distance to be maintained.

Since the crowd swell within minutes the police were forced to order the shops forcibly as otherwise, it might have led to spread of dreaded killer Coronavirus COVID-19.

The rise in Covid-19 cases in Dakshina Kannada and the neighbouring Kasargod district had forced the district administration to declare on total bandh on Saturday and Sunday but in vain.

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.