Indian expat dies in UAE after diesel container falls on him

Bengaluru, May 21: Karnataka reported 116 fresh cases of coronavirus on Thursday, taking the state tally to 1578. 

So far, 570 people have been cured and discharged while 41 have succumbed to the virus, informed the state health department.

Out of the 116 cases, 71 have a history of inter-state travel history to Maharashtra.

Out of the 116 cases, 27 are from Udupi alone, 15 cases are reported from Mandya and 13 are from Hassan. Bengaluru Urban saw seven new cases.

Mysuru, Mar 27: A 35-year old man from Mysuru, Karnataka was tested positive for coronavirus infection on Thursday, taking the state-wide count to 52 altogether.

This new case could be an indication that Covid-19 has entered into the third stage of community transmission in Karnataka, as the infected person neither has any travel history nor have been in contact with Covid-affected persons.

The patient works in the quality assurance section of a pharmaceutical company in Nanjangud in Mysuru district, and has been in continuous contact with medical care professionals.

Mysuru DC Mr Abhiram G Shankar informs that detailed investigation is under process.

He is currently undergoing treatment at an isolation ward in a designated hospital in Mysuru. So far his seven primary contacts have been traced and they are under home quarantine, Mr Abhiram Shankar said.

A 35 year old Mysurean, and another 46 year old Keralite, both who had come from Dubai, were the first and second cases tested positive for Covid-19 in Mysuru. They are also currently kept under isolation.

Mysuru district administration has identified 898 international passengers in Mysuru district including 152 in the taluks. Among them, while 149 persons have completed home quarantine period by now, the rest are still in isolation.

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.