‘A corrupt deal’: Probe sought into handing over of 5 airports including Mangaluru to Adani

Belgaum, Feb 24: Around 20 people entered a boys' hostel premises in Karnataka's Belgaum with rods and bats and destroyed properties allegedly over ragging of a girl by two hostel residents.

The incident took place on February 23 and was captured in the CCTV camera.

According to Belgaum Police, a gang of 20 people entered Dr BR Ambedkar post metric hostel premises in Belgaum with rods and bats. The group destroyed the properties of hostel, bikes, and scooters.

Police said this is an issue of ragging and during the incident, no students were injured.

Further, the investigation is underway.

Mangaluru, Jul 7: The government of Kerala has barred movement of daily pass holders — professionals and workers — between Kasaragod district and Karnataka’s Dakshina Kannada district following a spurt in COVID-19 cases.

Kerala Revenue Minister E. Chandrasekaran announced the decision at a meeting on Monday in Kasaragod. Both district administrations had in June issued passes to daily travellers in their districts to travel in connection with their work.

Those from Dakshina Kannada intending to work in Kasaragod have to remain in Kasaragod for 28 days if they wish to continue and those from Kasaragod would have to remain in Dakshina Kannada for 28 days if they wish to continue their work, the Minister said.

Thousands from Kasaragod travel daily to Mangaluru and surrounding areas in connection with their work. Their travel past Talapady check post on NH 66 was facilitated by daily e-passes.

Similarly, many from Dakshina Kannada, particularly doctors and healthcare workers, travel daily to Kasaragod with daily e-passes issued by the Kasaragod administration.

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.