Delhi BJP MLA justifies his brutality; pics go viral, cops say no proof!

Udupi, Jun 2: As many as 150 persons tested positive for COVID-19 in Udupi district on Tuesday. This is the highest spike in COVID-19 cases in a single day in the district.

According to the district administration, all the 150 persons have travel history from Maharashtra. The number of COVID-19 cases has more than doubled when compared to June 1, when the district recorded 73 cases.

Deputy Commissioner G. Jagadeesha said here that of the 150 persons who tested positive, 120 were male and 30 female. This also included nine children aged less than 10. All these persons had been shifted to the designated hospitals for treatment.

He said that since 2,000 persons were tested in the last two days, 150 persons were found positive. Earlier, about 200 to 300 persons were being tested daily and about 10 to 15 used to be found positive. Nearly 10 % of persons coming from Mumbai/Maharashtra tested positive for COVID-19.

“We have 1,120 beds to treat COVID-19 positive cases in the district. Even after including these 150 persons, we still have 800 beds left. Hence, people need not panic. We will provide treatment for all affected persons,” Mr. Jagadeesha said.

With 150 cases on Tuesday, the total number of persons who have tested positive in the district since March has touched 410. There are 345 active cases.

As many as 63 persons who had recovered had been discharged from hospitals. There was one death due to the disease on May 14. The test reports of nearly 5,400 persons are still awaited.

The district had recorded only three COVID-19 cases from March 29 to May 14. But the number of COVID-19 cases started increasing from May 15.

Mangaluru, May 10: A delegation of Muslm community leaders called on Dakshina Kannada deputy commissioner Sindhu B Roopesh and discussed her about quarantine facilities for Indians returning from Gulf amidst covid-19 lockdown.

First evacuation flight from Dubai to Mangaluru will operate on May 12. Demand is mounting on the Centre to operate more flights from Gulf countries including UAE and Saudi Arabia.

International passengers will not be direct sent home after they land at any Indian airport. They will be divided into two categories. After screening at the airports, symptomatic will be sent directly to the covid-19 hospitals and asymptomatic and healthy will be sent for mandatory quarantine in designated hotel rooms and guest houses.

District administration has clarified that those who are under quarantine in hotels and guest houses will not be allowed to have outside food. Nor they will be allowed to contact anyone.

The delegation brought to the notice of DC that there will be many fasting Muslims among Gulf returnees and they need Suhoor and Iftar facility during Ramadan. The DC positively responded and assured that such facility will be arranged in the hotel rooms.

The delegation also asked about the claim of the officials of ministry of external affairs that delay in arranging quarantine facility in Karnataka delayed the evacuation flights from Gulf countries to the state. The DC said that the district administration has already made necessary arrangements for those who are coming to Dakshina Kannada.

Led by Mangaluru MLA U T Khader, the delegation comprised of JD(S) MLC B M Farookh, S M Rasheed Haji, Shafi Saadi, Mumtaz Ali, Kanchur Monu, B A Mohiuddin Bava, Ibrahim Kodichal, Rasheed Haji of Ullal Dargah and others.

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.