Mangaluru, Mumbai to be first Indian cities to submerge: NASA study

Bengaluru, Jul 7: Former Health minister and Congress MLA UT Khader has alleged that the state government has purchased coronavirus equipment for more than twice the actual price.

"Rs 500 sanitizers have been purchased for Rs 900 and Rs 9,000 has been paid to Rs 1200 for the thermal metre by the government. Instead of asking to allow him to work, Mr B Sriramulu, being health minister he must work for the people," he said.

He said that three months have passed since the pandemic started but the state government is still struggling to send ambulances to needy patients.

"Instead of ambulance it is sending final rights vehicle to needy people," Khader said.

According to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, there are 23,474 coronavirus cases in Karnataka including 13,255 and 372 deaths.

Mangaluru, Apr 22: Iftar parties, Taraweeh and weekly Friday prayers in mosques have been banned in the district during Ramadan amid Coronavirus theat, Dakshina Kannada Deputy Commissioner Sindhu B Rupesh said here on Wednesday.

In a release issued here, she said, “As per the guidelines issued by the State government and Wakf Board, arranging Iftar gathering, and offering Taraveeh Namaz and Friday Namaz at mosques or dargas during the month of Ramadan has been prohibited as a precaution measure to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Therefore, offer prayers at homes instead of going to mosques," the DC said.

“No one can perform Namaz in the mosques except the muezzin and the Pesh imam and the staff of the mosque. Also, gathering neighbors and offering collective prayers at anybody's home is also not allowed. Masjid administration committees must follow the directives of the government, Wakf Board and the District Administration”, the DC urged.

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.