Congress bites dust in Udupi dist; BJP sweeps all five constituencies

Udupi, Jun 4: Karnataka Medical Education Minister Dr K Sudhakhar on Wednesday said that he will take up an issue before a high-powered committee on COVID-19 to find out the possibility of imposing lockdown on a particular house of the person infected with the virus instead of sealing down of entire areas.

Talking to reporters here on Tuesday after reviewing the district's prevailing COVID situation, the minister said the concept and modalities of declaring any area as containment zone has undergone changes in the last two months.

"Hitherto, we were declaring the entire area as the containment zone after detection of coronavirus positive cases. Subsequently, the area of the containment zone was decreased from the whole area to a particular street," the Minister said.

"Now, BJP MLA Raghupati Bhat has given a suggestion to seal down a particular house of the positive patient which would be taken up before the high-powered panel. The district administration concerned could supply all essential items to the particular family," he said.

He further said that the Union government has been providing all facilities to all the states to deal with the situation."

Kasaragod, Jul 14: Kerala State Excise department officials confiscated hawala money to the tune of Rs 2.85 crore from a person hailing from Mangaluru.

According to sources, the officials of the Kumbala Range Excise had noticed the huge baggage containing hundreds of bundles of unaccounted currencies when they intercepted a vehicle at the border check-post at Thoominad in Manjeshwar early on Tuesday morning.

The accused Shamsudheen, who was trying to transport the illegal money into Kerala has been arrested and handed over to the Manjeshwar police authorities for further action, sources added.

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.