Dubai: BWF hosts lectures, picnic to mark UAE National Day

New Delhi, Apr 26: The Centre will bring back the Indian citizens stranded abroad due to the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft, only if the respective states they belong to agree to allow them to come back home and make necessary arrangements to quarantine them after their return.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has started consultations with the State Governments on bringing back the Indians, who got stranded in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada and many other foreign countries due to the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft to any airport in the country. The decision on facilitating their return to the country would be taken after getting feedback on preparedness of the States and the Union Territory to receive them following all required health precautions, Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba said.

Gauba on Saturday had a video-conference with the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to review the implementation of the restrictions on travel and transport as well as the lockdown imposed across the country to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Though the Government earlier either evacuated or facilitated the return of nearly 28000 Indians from a number of foreign countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, it almost stopped doing so after the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft was enforced on March 23 in the wake of the spurt in the number of COVID-19 cases in India.

Thousands of Indian students, tourists, professionals and others are stranded around the world, including in the countries, where respective governments had imposed lockdowns to contain the pandemic. They have been desperately requesting the government on social media to evacuate them.

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.

Jan 21: Info Edge (India)'s shareholding in Zomato reduces to 22.71%; Uber receives 9.99% stake in Zomato.

Info Edge (India) announced that Zomato Media (Zomato) has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Uber's food delivery business in India (Uber) in an all-stock transaction, which gives Uber 9.99% ownership in Zomato.

Uber Eats in India will discontinue operations and direct restaurants, delivery partners, and users of the Uber Eats apps to the Zomato platform, effective 21 January 2020.

Upon closing of said acquisition, the company's shareholding in Zomato shall stand reduced to about 22. 71 % on fully converted & diluted basis.