Karnataka launches new scholarship scheme for OBC students

Bengaluru, Jun 4: All shops, offices, malls, commercial establishments and others in Karnataka must not allow Covid-stamped people to enter their premises before the completion of the prescribed quarantine time, said a top official on Wednesday.

"They should not allow those with quarantine stamp to enter before the end of their quarantine period or till they get current Covid negative test report," ordered Chief Secretary T.M. Vijay Bhaskar.

Bhaskar has also issued the order to all religious places, hotels and others to first check for quarantine stamp on all their customers or visitors before they enter the premises.

"All shops, commercial establishments, offices, factories, malls, religious places, hotels and etc.. are required to check for quarantine stamp on all their customers or visitors before they enter the premises," he said.

In the event of a violation, Bhaskar said the police should be informed at 100.

He issued the same order to the general public and resident welfare associations asking them to be vigilant.

"General public and resident welfare associations are advised to report any violation of the quarantine in their neighbourhood to the police at telephone number 100," said the chief secretary.

The orders came under the head aRole of general public, resident welfare associations and commercial establishments''.

General public, commercial establishments and resident welfare associations have been empowered to report quarantine violations at a time when many activities are set to reopen from June 8 as part of Unlock - 1, after more than two months of lockdown.

Bengaluru, Feb 5: The Karnataka government on Tuesday launched the Janasevaka scheme in a few municipal corporation wards to ensure home delivery of various services like ration cards, senior citizen identity and health cards.

The scheme, which was launched by Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, will pertain to 53 services involving 11 departments.

"Janasevaka under the Sakala scheme is a programme to avail the benefits of government schemes at the doorstep. Our objective is to make the lives of the citizens of Karnataka easy by launching this scheme," the Chief Minister said. Sakala aims to ensure in-time delivery of government services to citizens by practising innovative and efficient management systems through capacity building in government and empowering citizens to exercise their right to service.

Minister for Sakala and Primary and Secondary Education S Suresh Kumar said: "The scheme that was implemented in Dasarahalli area on a pilot basis will now be extended to Mahadevapura, Bommanahalli and Rajajinagar areas."

He added that it will benefit the senior citizens of the city.

If the scheme works well, it will be implemented across Bengaluru in all the 27 assembly segments, Kumar said, adding that based on the experiment in Bengaluru, it will be extended to Mysuru, Mangaluru and Hubballi-Dharwad.

Under the scheme, there will be one volunteer in each ward. These volunteers have been outsourced. A toll-free helpline has been set up for this scheme which will work from 8 am to 8 pm.

A sum of Rs 115 will be charged to provide the home delivery services.

In addition to it, the Karnataka government has also decided to seek information under the RTI Act easy by making it online.

People can apply from home by paying the fee online. This will make the process hassle-free, the Chief Minister said.

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.