Mangaluru: Youth Congress protestors call Amit Shah a terrorist', court arrest

Mangaluru, Jan 11: U Haroon bin Aboobakar Mukri, a businessman from Uppinangady passed away at a private hospital in the city today. He was 74.

He was undergoing treatment for multiple ailments including age-related diseases. He breathed his last at 12:40 a.m. on Saturday.

Son of Late Aboobakar Mukri, who was an Islamic activist and leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind in Uppinangady, Haroon was known for his generosity, kind-heartedness and simplicity.

An alumnus of St Aloysius College, Mangaluru, he was also a passionate traveller and life enthusiast, who always loved to meet people and spread positive vibes.

He is survived by his wife, four sons, a daughter and a large number of relatives, friends and well-wishers.

The funeral prayers were held at Masjid al-Huda, Uppinangady on Saturday afternoon. He was buried on premises of the same mosque.

Bengaluru, Feb 23: Bolstered by the Supreme Court's interim nod for the gazette notification of the Mahadayi Water Dispute Tribunal award by the Central government, Karnataka decided to allot funds for the drinking water project in the state's northwest region, an official said on Saturday.

"Funds will be allotted in the state budget for fiscal 2020-21 to complete the Kalasa-Banduri project across the Mahadayi river for supplying drinking water to the four drought-prone northern districts in the state," the official of the water resources department told media on anonymity.

As Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa also holds the finance portfolio, he has agreed to allocate funds for the project, held up for years in the legal battle with the neighbouring Goa and Maharashtra over the sharing of the river water among the three coastal states.

Yediyurappa is slated to present the state budget for the ensuing fiscal in the legislative assembly on March 2.

"We will resume the project work once the Centre notifies the award though it will be binding on the final outcome of the apex court's hearing the review petitions of Goa and Maharashtra against the Tribunal award," the official noted.

A division bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta on Thursday passed an interim order on the Tribunal award, allowing the central water resources ministry to notify it for implementation and posted the case for final hearing in July.

The Tribunal on August 14, 2018 allocated 13.42 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) of the river water to the southern state for irrigation and drinking water supply to towns and villages across Bagalkot, Belagavi, Dharwad and Gadag districts, which are in the arid region of the Deccan plateau.

The four districts are about 400-550 km northwest of Bengaluru in the southern state.

Of the 13.42 tmcft water, 5.5 tmcft will be used in the river basin and for diversion into the depleted Malaprabha reservoir while the balance 7.92 tmcft will be utilized for hydel power generation instead of allowing the water to go into the Arabian Sea on the state's west coast through Goa.

Goa, which opposed Karnataka's demand for 36.66 tmcft, was allocated 24 tmcft, while Maharashtra got 1.3 tmcft.

The Tribunal assessed that 188.06 tmc feet water is available at 75 per cent dependability.

The three-member Tribunal is headed by Chairman Justice J.M. Panchal, Justice Viney Mittal and Justice P.S. Naayana.

The Union government had set up the inter-state Tribunal on November 16, 2010 for the djudication of the Mahadayi basin water allocation among the three riparian and contiguous states.

Goa and Maharashtra claimed 122.6 tmc feet and 6.35 tmc feet of the river water respectively.

The Tribunal, which commenced sittings on September 6, 2012, held 1,209 sittings for over 6 years.

Supreme Court senior counsel F.S. Nariman represented the state before the Tribunal to present its case.

The Tribunal's chairman and two members inspected the river basin area across the three coastal states from December 12-24, 2013.

The 77km-long Mahadayi or Mandovi river originates at Bhimgad in the Western Ghats in Belagavi district and flows into the neighbouring Goa through Maharashtra and joins the Arabian Sea off the west coast.

Though the river flows 29 km in Karnataka and 52 km in Goa, its catchment area is spread over 2,032 km in the southern state as against 1,580 km in the western state (Goa).

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.