Telecom fraud: 3 more Mangaluru expats likely to walk free from Saudi jail soon

Bengaluru, Jan 13: Right-wing organisations, along with BJP and RSS workers, will take out a massive padayatra in Kanakapura on Monday, protesting against the construction of a Jesus Christ statue.

The event organised by the Hindu Jagarana Vedike (HJV) will witness a rally from the Aiyappa temple in Kanakapura to the taluk panchayat office, where a memorandum will be submitted to the authorities following a public meeting.

Ahead of the event, Congress leader D K Shivakumar, in a video message released on Sunday, urged the people of Kanakapura to maintain calm. The former minister cast apprehensions over the event scheduled on Monday and said provocative statements may be made to disturb peace and harmony in Kanakapura.

Shivakumar, who represents the Kanakapura constituency, said the motive of the meeting by the leaders and workers of the BJP and the RSS, along with seers of mutts, was to defame his constituency.

“If any remarks are made against me, my brother (D K Suresh) or people of different faiths in Kanakapura constituency, do not be provoked,” he urged.

“Members of the (Christian) community have prayed at the site for 400 years and are trying to install a statue of Jesus Christ. I have helped the community like I aided hundreds of temples and educational institutions,” he said.

Appealing to maintain peace, Shivakumar said that BJP and RSS leaders were free to petition anybody.  

The BJP and right-wing organisations have objected to the construction of the statue at Kapala Betta, with the BJP government ordering a probe into how road, power supply and other facilities were provided to the hill. Recently, Christian leaders had petitioned Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa to remove any impediments to the construction of the statue.

Mangaluru, Jul 24: Parents in Dakshina Kannada are urging the educational institutions to reduce fees at least by 75% as most of the infrastructure and resources are not being utilized due to online classes. 

“School campuses are now closed. Why we have to pay such a heavy fee when our children are not availing the facilities offered on campus?” asks a Sapna (name changed), a parent, whose two daughters study at a prestigious private school in Mangaluru.  

Even though some schools considered as small players have reduced fees, most of the “prestigious” institutions in the Mangaluru have so far refused to give any discount.

“Apart from paying school fees, now we have to invest in gadgets, internet connections and accessories required for online classes. School administration can use their infrastructure and facilities for other purposes as students are not utilizing them. Hence, they must give us maximum discount during this pandemic,” said another parent.  
 
On the other hand, many parents are facing a dire financial situation due to covid-19 lockdown – while some have suffered losses in their business some have lost their jobs.

Many parents have even approached the education department to ensure that they get a discount in fees from educational institutions, said Dakshina Kannada DDPI Malleswamy.

“We cannot do anything since a government circular has asked educational institutions not to hike fees, which they have not done, and reduce fees if possible, which will never happen. The department is acting against only those schools that forcefully collect fees,” the DDPI said.

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.