Karnataka polls: With assets over Rs 1,020-cr Priya Krishna is the richest candidate

New Delhi, Jun 7: The Karnataka government has asked the railways to make announcements at originating stations that it was compulsory for passengers travelling to the state to register themselves on the ‘Seva Sindhu’ portal through which they can be tracked.

In a letter to Chairman Railway Board on Saturday, Chief Secretary of the state T M Vijay Bhaskar said many passengers are not aware of this mandatory rule of the southern state.

He said thousands of passengers are coming to Karnataka from New Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra and other states through trains everyday, but most of them are not registered under the Seva Sindhu portal of the Government of Kamataka.

"If passengers are not registered under Seva Sindhu, the state will not be able to track them. Therefore, it is necessary to create awareness among the passengers regarding registration under the portal.

"Hence, it is requested to give instructions to origin railway stations to make announcements that ‘It is compulsory for all passengers travelling to Karnataka to register in Seva Sindhu portal. Otherwise they will not be allowed for home quarantine’, and also to give passengers awareness (about this) at the time of booking tickets,” Bhaskar said in his letter to the national transporter.

Seva Sindhu portal, under the control of the Karnataka government, provides various online services to the citizens of the state.

Currently, this portal is playing an important role in helping those stranded amid the COVID-19 pandemic to fill online registration forms for availing e-passes.

Bengaluru, Mar 4: The Karnataka High Court has issued a notice to the state government in connection with the denial of retirement benefits to a retired deputy commissioner of commercial taxes who had fought against the illegal iron ore lobby.

Justice G Narendra also directed the state to respond to the notice before March 9, stating the reasons for withholding the officer’s retirement benefits.

Advocate Ramananda, appearing for the retired officer Josephat Andrews, explained that the single-judge bench also warned the government of stringent action.

Petitioner Josephat Andrews said his retirement benefits amounting to Rs 25.88 lakh were being withheld since 2014.

In 2009, Andrews detected a huge scam involving Vijaya Leasing, a company associated with former minister Gali Janardhan Reddy. Immediately he wrote to his higher officials explaining to them how the department was owed Rs 1,400 crore in taxes by the company. Immediately after that, Andrews was transferred to Bengaluru.

The media exposed the scam in 2012. Thereafter, to harass the officer, Andrews was served notice for allegedly not conducting an inspection of M/s Vijaya Leasing, which was controlled by the family of then tourism minister Gali Janardhana Reddy, on July 11, 2012.  He was discharged by a full departmental enquiry.

The petitioner was issued a second show cause notice on Jan 29, 2014 on the same charges. Before his retirement, he was docked two increments, denied promotional benefits and his pension was reduced without following due process.

He was served yet another notice with charges that he did not inspect goods vehicles, and an order was passed on April 30, 2019 reducing his pension by 5 per cent, an unprecedented punitive action.

This order was quashed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which also ordered payment of retirement benefits to Andrews within five months. However, the benefits were not released to him.  

“Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) make it clear that no enquiry can be held four years after an officer’s retirement.  Belying all statutory rules and precedents of the Supreme Court, Josephat Andrews’ retirement benefits were withheld for five years. Andrews therefore approached the High Court,” advocate Ramananda explained.

Josephat Andrews recalled to Deccan Chronicle that although mining activity was in full swing in 2008, the commercial tax department maintained that it had nothing to do with mining. “I travelled to Gujarat, Maharashtra and Bellary to investigate. I found tax evasion of thousands of crores. When I visited M/s the Vijaya Leasing facility – it was operating from an old oil mill premises–within 20 minutes I got calls from Ali, a person claiming to be the personal assistant of Gali Janardhan Reddy. He told me to get out of the premises as it belonged to his boss. Then calls came from minister Sreeramulu and MLA Nagendra. 

Within minutes 200-300 rowdies gathered around the building and my superior asked me to come back. Instead of filing a police complaint and forming a special team to deal with the situation, the department transferred me to Bengaluru,” he explained.

Talking about the High Court directive, Josephat Andrews said, “I have suffered a lot. Instead of getting a reward for increasing revenues by Rs 2,000 crore, I was punished.”

New Delhi, Jan 19: Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday asserted that every state assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek the amended Citizenship Act's withdrawal, but if the law is declared constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it.

His remarks came a day after he had said there is no way a state can deny the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) when it is already passed by the Parliament.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal said in a tweet.

His remarks on the CAA at the Kerala Literature Festival (KLF) on Saturday had caused a flutter as several non-BJP governments, including Kerala, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra, have voiced their disagreement with the CAA as well as National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR).

"If the CAA is passed no state can say 'I will not implement it'. It is not possible and is unconstitutional. You can oppose it, you can pass a resolution in the Assembly and ask the central government to withdraw it.

"But constitutionally saying that I won't implement, it is going to be problematic and going to create more difficulties," said the former minister of law and justice.