Bahmani Sultans were anti-Hindus; govt celebrating their utsav to appease Muslims: Shobha

New Delhi, Feb 24: India has deeply appreciated the Senegal government's decision to extradite fugitive gangster Ravi Poojary to India, official sources said on Sunday.

Facilitation of transit provided by the Government of France has also been acknowledged, they said.

Ravi Prakash Poojary, accused of committing a number of serious offences including murder and extortion in multiple jurisdictions, was extradited from Senegal on Saturday.

The probe agencies have persistently pursued the case for his extradition with the authorities in Senegal. India had made a request with Senegal for his extradition in early 2019, sources said.

Poojary was associated with gangster Chhota Rajan, but he also worked for fugitive underworld don Dawood Ibrahim.

Bengaluru, Mar 5: At 11 am on Friday, Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa will present the State Budget for the 2020-2021 fiscal. Coming at a time when the state is facing financial challenges, the budget is expected to have minor tax shocks for citizens, while making space for big-ticket allocations to the agriculture and water resources ministries. Thursday's budget will be Yediyurappa’s seventh.

“Agriculture is our primary focus. The recent gazette notification of the Mahadayi tribunal order is a welcome move for Karnataka and we will make budgetary allocations for this too,” the CM had said.

The cut back in devolution of funds for Karnataka from the divisible pool, trimming of funds from the Union Government for Centrally-sponsored schemes and tax collections falling short of revenue targets have made matters tough for Yediyurappa. The consolation may be the part payment of one installment of GST compensation from the Centre. The GST compensation, in part for the October-November period, was released to the state in time for tabling of the budget.

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.