Mangaluru: Mescom officer Rahman ends life by jumping off Netravati bridge

Kasaragod, Apr 21: Kerala reported a spike in COVID-19 cases on Tuesday with 19 people testing positive, after a decline in the numbers in the past few days, as the total infections touched 426 in the southern state.

Kannur recorded 10 cases, Palakkad four, Kasaragod three and Malappuram and Kollam one each, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan told reporters here.

The number of those getting infected were in single digits over the past few days.

Of the 10 positive cases from Kannur, nine of them had come from abroad and one had been infected through contact, he said.

Pointing out that the positive cases in Palakkad,Malappuram and Kollam had come from neighbouring Tamil Nadu, Vijayan said there is need to enforce strict vigilance in places bordering neighbouring states.

Sixteen people tested negative on Tuesday, while the total active cases 117, he added.

At least 32,000 people are under observation,

Of the around 20,000 samples sent, 19,440 had returned negative, Vijayan said.

Mangaluru, Apr 17: Authorities in Dakshina Kannada have announced a fresh coronavirus positive case. The patient is a resident of Uppinangady in Puttur taluk.

With this the total number of covid-19 positive cases in this coastal district mounted to 13 even though most of the patients have recovered and returned home after treatment.

In past twelve days this is the first coronavirus case reported in the district.

It is learnt that the 39-year-old had been to Delhi. He was home quarantined for past few days. His throat swabs were tested positive for the deadly disease today.

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.