Gujarat outcome will have no effect on Karnataka's 2018 polls: Siddaramaiah

Bengaluru, Mar 3: Bengaluru mayor Gautam Kumar on Tuesday said that the decision to ban protests in front of Town Hall was made by the council and not only by him.

"The decision to ban the protest in front of the Town Hall was made by the entire council and not only my decision. Also, the things which are approved by the councillor are also read by the ruling party leaders," Bengaluru mayor told media.

"Still it is the discretion of the Commissioner to take a call after the council also. As of now, we have banned any protests in front of Town Hall," he added.

Meanwhile, Congress leaders staged a protest against Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Mayor Gautam Kumar and BJP at Council BBMP building against the decision.

"If people will start protesting, it will badly affect the traffic of the city," said Kumar, while commenting on the protest. If they want to talk about the matter, let us have a healthy discussion. I don't have a problem with and I don't think the ruling party has a problem too," he added.

On Sunday, pro-Kannada activist and former MLA Vatal Nagraj staged a protest in front of Sir KP Puttanna Chetty Town Hall (Bangalore Town Hall) against the decision taken by Bengaluru mayor.

Talking to reporters, Nagraj had said: "He does not know the history of the Town Hall. It is a historic building and protests can be staged there."

"Mayor's decision is against Bengaluru's tradition and culture, that's why we are condemning it and are protesting against this decision. We will not allow Mayor's programs in Bengaluru and he will be shown black flags", he added.

Bengaluru, May 26: After Yogi Adityanath said that no state can take manpower from Uttar Pradesh without his government's permission, Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president DK Shivakumar on Tuesday termed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister's move as "unconstitutional" and "against the right to freedom of movement."

"Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's move to restrict hiring people of Uttar Pradesh is unconstitutional and goes against the right to freedom of movement. Mr Yogi, please note that UP is not the private property of your govt. The people of Uttar Pradesh don't need your government's permission to work anywhere in India," Shivakumar tweeted.

"Mr Yogi doesn't understand the basic rules of governance in a democracy. Such actions lack common sense and will only make the people of Uttar Pradesh suffer more. When it's convenient for BJP, it's One Nation, when it's not, it's different states and different people. Heights of hypocrisy," he added.

Adityanath had on Monday said that the state government will provide social security and insurance to labourers and no state can take manpower from Uttar Pradesh without his government's permission.

"If any state wants manpower, they cannot take our people from the state without our permission as there were reports of misbehaviour with them in other states. We are taking full responsibility for labourers' social security. We will provide every kind of security to them including insurance. Wherever they will go, we will always stand by them," Yogi said.

The Chief Minister said that skill mapping is being done in Uttar Pradesh and a commission will be set up for labourers to ensure employment for them.

On Sunday, Adityanath had ordered the formation of a 'Migration Commission' for the purpose of providing the workers, who have returned to the state during the lockdown phase, with employment suited to their skills.

Udupi, Mar 2: The Kundapur police carried out raids at various clubs in Kundapur Sub-division limits and arrested around 50 persons involved in illegal gambling and seized Rs 2.5 lakhs from their possession, the police said on Monday.

According to the police, on Sunday night, based on credible information, the Kudapur Sub-division police led by ASP Hariram Shanker and team raided various clubs in Goliyangadi, Siddapur, Koteswar and Basrur where the accused were found gambling illegally.

All the clubs had taken court permission for recreation but were illegally indulging in gambling. They had also violated the court conditions and were involved in illegal gambling.