Brakes fail, trucker helps bus driver navigate slope

Madikeri, Feb 23: Back-to-back floods and landslides in the last two years, has led to a fall in the number of tourists coming to the coffee-growing region of Kodagu, forcing the district administration to intervene and take confidence-building measures, telling tourists that Kodagu was safe to visit.

According to the statistics of the Karnataka State Tourism Department, Kodagu recorded a moderately good number of tourists in 2018 and 2019, the years that the district witnessed devastating floods and landslides.

The Department’s statistics reveal that 17 lakh tourists visited Kodagu in 2018 and 18 lakh in 2019. This means the flood-ravaged years did attract tourists contrary to what the stakeholders had claimed.

Bengaluru, Apr 25: Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu on Saturday initiated Phase I clinical trials to use plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients at city-based BMC Victoria Hospital.

Sriramulu was accompanied by Medical Education Minister Dr K Sudhakar.

"Karnataka has taken a lead role as we initiate Phase I clinical trials to use Convalescent Plasma Therapy for severe COVID-19 infected patients. BMC Victoria hospital took the first step today. We are determined to vanquish this enemy of mankind," Sriramulu said in a tweet.

"I wish our team of doctors at BMC Victoria hospital and team led by Dr US Vishal Rao a great success. This will be a torchbearer in our fight against Corona," he said in another tweet.

According to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the state has so far reported 474 confirmed cases of COVID-19 which include 152 discharged or cured patients and 18 deaths.

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.