Dakshina Kannada judge hasn't voted for last 32 years due to poll time transfers

Dubai, Jul 8: The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has revoked landing permits issued to UAE-based private jets flying Indian expats who are willing to fly back to UAE. With this the operation of private jets from India to the UAE has stopped.

The development comes days after DGCA stopped UAE airlines from chartering repatriation flights to India. 

The DGCA’s decision has come as a huge disappointment for desperate expats who are trying every means possible to return to the UAE, and were shelling out up to Dh15,000 per ticket.
 
All charter flights were operating with the appropriate permissions and clearances for the specific mission, route and destination, said the charterers.

DC Aviation Al-Futtaim, the only integrated VIP handling and hangar facility in DWC, said in an official statement: "As a result of the DGCA suspension of flights into India, our Challenger 604 aircraft which was scheduled to land in Dubai today has been affected."

Afi Ahmed, managing director of Smart Travels, said he has received news from official sources that all approvals for operation of private jets have been barred until July 10.

"Even the flights that had been given approvals stand cancelled. Some flights organised on July 9 have also been grounded," said Ahmed, who was also stranded in Kochi, Kerala, till July 4 but returned home in the UAE on-board Global 6,000, the largest business jet, organised by a Dubai-based aviation company.

Ganesh Rayapudi, a UAE-based businessman who has been trying to organise flights from India to UAE, said: "The government has kept on hold all charters. At least 52 passengers were desperately waiting to come back from Hyderabad on these flights and were willing to collectively cough up Dh400,000."

He added: "I agree that it is unfair to those who cannot afford these prices. However, UAE residents have commitments here; they were tired of waiting and willing to go any lengths, including taking the expensive route."

On July 3, India's DGCA announced via an official circular that scheduled international flights will remain suspended till month-end and only those on a case-to-case basis will be allowed to operate. These flights were suspended on March 22 due to the ongoing pandemic.

Bengaluru, Mar 19: As a precautionary measure to prevent the spread of coronavirus, the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf has issued an advisory to mosques, dargahs and other religious institutions, requesting them to conclude the Friday congregation in 15 minutes for the next three weeks.

"Respected head of masjids and imams (prayer leader) are requested to conclude the entire Juma congregation (including Juma khutbah, salah and dua) in 15 minutes for the next three weeks and avoid using the public mic for the khutbah and salah," read a statement from the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf.

It has advised to ensure cleanliness and good hygiene inside mosques and keep the carpets, prayer mats, floor mats etc clean.

Further, it stated that those coming for daily prayers should be instructed to perform wudhu (ablution) at their homes and avoid using prayer caps placed in masjids.

"Please remove the public towels and prayer caps from the masjids. Sunnah and nafil prayers should observed at home," the advisory read.

The advisory came as the number of coronavirus patients spiralled across the country. The governments are taking all precautionary measures to contain the spread of the virus that has claimed more than 7,500 lives across the globe since its outbreak in China in December last year.

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.