Don't unleash violence; Police can handle you: Home Minister to anti-Tipu groups

Mumbai, June 9: A 45-year-old doctor posted in the 108 ambulance service at Malad railway station in Mumbai died of COVID-19 after two hospitals refused admission, in spite of the fact that he was a frontline warrior against coronavirus.

The victim is Dr Shaukat Ali, who was working with the 108 ambulance service for the last four years. A few days ago, he got his blood tests done after his health deteriorated. The result stated typhoid fever following which he started getting treatment at home in Malwani.

Ali's family ran from pillar to post to get him hospitalised in either a private or government hospital, to no avail.

"On Friday, his condition worsened and he started feeling breathless. Despite us calling the 108 ambulance service, no one picked up the call. So after waiting for a while, I and uncle's colleague, Dr Nigam, rushed him to SK Patil hospital in Malad East in an auto. But they refused us stating they were admitting only COVID-19 patients.”

“Then we took him to Desai Hospital, where doctors were initially ready to admit him but later refused stating lack of beds. They said we could take him home as his condition was fine," Zubair Shaikh, Ali's nephew said.

"But his condition worsened. So, I called Dr Nigam and we managed to admit him in Shatabdi hospital. On Sunday, when his results came out stating that he had COVID-19, doctors had already put him on a ventilator, where he passed away in the evening," he added.

Zubair further said, "Had the doctors at Desai Memorial Hospital admitted him, my uncle would have been alive today. It is a matter of great regret that a doctor, who was risking his life during this pandemic, could not get help from his own government hospitals."

Ali's wife and his two children's are in UP, while he was staying with his elder daughter who had recently appeared for HSC exams and preparing for NEET.

Bengaluru, May 26: After Yogi Adityanath said that no state can take manpower from Uttar Pradesh without his government's permission, Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president DK Shivakumar on Tuesday termed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister's move as "unconstitutional" and "against the right to freedom of movement."

"Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's move to restrict hiring people of Uttar Pradesh is unconstitutional and goes against the right to freedom of movement. Mr Yogi, please note that UP is not the private property of your govt. The people of Uttar Pradesh don't need your government's permission to work anywhere in India," Shivakumar tweeted.

"Mr Yogi doesn't understand the basic rules of governance in a democracy. Such actions lack common sense and will only make the people of Uttar Pradesh suffer more. When it's convenient for BJP, it's One Nation, when it's not, it's different states and different people. Heights of hypocrisy," he added.

Adityanath had on Monday said that the state government will provide social security and insurance to labourers and no state can take manpower from Uttar Pradesh without his government's permission.

"If any state wants manpower, they cannot take our people from the state without our permission as there were reports of misbehaviour with them in other states. We are taking full responsibility for labourers' social security. We will provide every kind of security to them including insurance. Wherever they will go, we will always stand by them," Yogi said.

The Chief Minister said that skill mapping is being done in Uttar Pradesh and a commission will be set up for labourers to ensure employment for them.

On Sunday, Adityanath had ordered the formation of a 'Migration Commission' for the purpose of providing the workers, who have returned to the state during the lockdown phase, with employment suited to their skills.

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.