‘Intelligence report’ on Siddaramaiah’s assembly seat fake, clarifies CMO

Bengaluru, Mar 15: The civic body in Bengaluru has said that gathering at marriage functions should not exceed 100 people in order to curb the spread of coronavirus.

A circular issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) dated March 15 said, "All marriage functions pre booked in marriage halls, hotels, Party places, etc. prior to the issue of circular dated March 13, shall be allowed to be conducted subject to the condition that the gathering in the function not exceeding 100 persons."

"The above relaxation is an exception in consideration of the difficulties in rescheduling and cancelling the Marriage event immediately," the circular said.

It said, "The Owners/Management of such locations where Marriages are to be solemnized due to pre booking shall maintain high standards of sanitation and hygiene by periodically cleaning by 10 per cent Sodium Hydrochlorite Solution or any other effective disinfectant the surfaces, floors and exposed areas likely to be touched by the attendants."

"Any person attending the function having any such symptoms like Cough, Cold, and Fever etc. shall be requested for immediately leaving the Programmes," it said.

The civic body further said in the circular, "No fresh bookings of any place for Marriage programme are permitted till further orders. Any bookings on future dates by any organizer, event manager, owner of such property or any other person will be at his own risk and action will be taken against the property or any other person for any kind of bookings before an Order allowing such bookings is issued by a Competent Authority."

"The restrictions imposed are in the absolute interest of Public Health for preventing the Community Spread and outbreak of the disease at mass scale. All other restrictions imposed by order dated March 13 shall stand the same," the Circular added.

Mangaluru,  May 3: An unidentified vehicle mowed down a 62-year-old security guard near Guruvayanakere, Belthangady taluk, on Saturday.

The deceased Lingappa Moolya was returning to his home in Guruvayanakere on a two-wheeler when the hit-and-run case took place. Police said he was hit by a truck. A guard at an ATM, Moolya was also an active member of the local Kulala Association.

A case was registered at Belthangady police station.

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.