Builder Avinash Prabhu arrested for duping people of Rs 100 crore; Range Rover, Audi seized

Bengaluru, May 22: Amid the fourth phase of nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, inter-state travel from Karnataka is now permitted with the consent of the receiving state, informed Praveen Sood, Karnataka Director General of Police (DGP) and Inspector General (IG).

"Inter-state pass is not required to go out of Karnataka as long as you have the consent of the receiving state," he said.

The order follows MHA's recent announcement of relaxed guidelines amid the nationwide lockdown.

"Due to lockdown, migrant workers, pilgrims, tourists, students and other persons are stranded at different places. They would be allowed to move as under," read the new guidelines while asking states to designate nodal authorities to facilitate the interstate movement.

The Centre has extended the lockdown till May 31 across the country.

Bengaluru, May 5: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Tuesday said that the coronavirus situation in the state is "under control" as compared to several other states in the country.

He also hinted that soon the construction and industrial activities would be allowed in the state except in the red zones.

"Coronavirus situation in the state is under control as compared to other states. Due to this, travel of migrant workers was prohibited. Now, trade, construction and industrial activities need to restart, except in the red zones," he told reporters.

According to the Karnataka Health Department, the state has so far recorded 659 COVID-19 cases, including 324 discharged and 28 deaths.

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.