Coastal Karnataka celebrates Eid al-Fitr; thousands offer prayers braving rains

Thiruvanthapuram, Feb 21: Rape-accused Bishop Franco Mulakkal has been accused of sexual abuse by another nun. Police sources say that there is at least one more nun who has given a statement of sexual assault against the bishop.

This nun is a witness in the rape case registered against Franco Mulakkal. She is the 14th witness in the case and in her statement, she said that the bishop made sexually-colored and lewd remarks to her over the phone.

As per the nun, they were in communication via phone calls, chat and video calls for a period of two years from 2015 to 2017.

In the statement, the nun said that she kept quiet as she was scared of the bishop.

In her witness statement in September 2018, she said that in 2017, the bishop visited the convent she was in and hugged and kissed her.

Police say that the witness was not ready to file a complaint against the bishop. They had alerted the police in the jurisdiction and when the team met her, she refused to file a complaint. Hence a separate case wasn't registered against Bishop Franco

The first nun of Missionaries of Jesus had accused Franco of raping her multiple times at the Kuruvilangadu convent in Kottayam. The FIR in the case was registered in June 2018.

Then after protests, Franco was arrested on September 21, 2018.

The chargesheet in the case was submitted in April 2019. In the chargesheet, Bishop Franco Mullackal has been charged under various sections of the IPC: 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (2k) (rape on a woman incapable of giving consent), 376 (2n) (causing grievous bodily harm during rape), 376 (c) (a) 377 (unnatural offence) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation).

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, Jul 2: Karnataka government has issued a show-cause notice to 18 private hospitals for refusing to admit a 52-year-old patient with influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms, who later died.

According to the notice dated on June 30, a 52-years patient named Bhawarlal Sujani died after he was denied admission by 18 private hospitals.

The patient was taken to these hospitals on Saturday and Sunday for admission on observing some ILI like symptoms. But none of these hospitals admitted in on the pretext of unavailability of bed/ventilators, read the notice.

This is a clear violation of providing medical assistance and admission necessitated under the agreed provision of KPME Registration. They should strictly adhere to the provisions under Sections 11 & 11 A of KPME Act 2017. Private Medical Establishments cannot deny/ refuse/ avoid treatment to patients with Covid-19 and Covid-19 like symptoms, the state Health Department said.

By denying the admission to the deceased patient, your hospitals have violated the provisions of the above-said act. You are liable for legal action in this regard, as per the notice.

The state Health department asked the hospitals to reply as to why action should not be initiated under the relevant Acts.