Rivalry among Mangaluru Salafi groups quenches media’s thirst for ISIS story

Mangaluru, Apr 7: The virology lab set up in Wenlock Hospital here to test COVID-19 samples will start functioning from Tuesday, Karnataka District in-charge Minister Kota Srinivas Poojary said.

In his tweeter Mr Poojary said “After receiving approval from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and National Institute of Virology (NIV), the Virology Research and Diagnostic Laboratory set up at district Wenlock will start operating from April 7. The samples for COVID-19 will be tested in the district itself. I thank the state government for helping us set up the lab.”

The new Lab becomes the 10th government lab for testing COVID-19 samples in the state.

Mangaluru, Jul 2: Mangaluru BJP Corporator Manohar Shetty, who entered a manhole to clean a drain, said that he did it to avoid waterlogging ahead of monsoon as people were facing several problems for the past few years.

"In my ward, there is a rainwater drain at Kadri Kambla junction and for the past few years, there was a waterlogging problem due to trash water used to collect and vehicles used to find it difficult to pass in that area," Shetty said.

"Since there was a lot of trash it had to be cleared to avoid waterlogging. We changed our dresses, and then I along with my three party workers entered manhole and cleared the trash," he said.

The Mangaluru BJP Corporator further said that it was not a publicity stunt, and he cleaned the drain to solve the problem of people. "During elections, I had promised people to get the drain cleaned. Since monsoon was coming; something had to be done; we did not do it for publicity but to solve a problem," he 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.