Elderly thief nabbed: Rs 3.5 lakh worth of gold seized

Mysuru, Jan 19: The 'City of Palaces', for the first time in history, got a Muslim woman as its first citizen, on Saturday.

Tasneem, a JD(S) Corporator, is elected as the 22nd Mayor of Mysuru. The 34-year-old Tasneem is a second-time corporator, representing Ward number, 26. She defeated BJP candidate Geetha Yogananda, representing Ward no 65 of Srirampura, by a margin of 24 votes. Out of 70 members, who were present during the election, 47 voted for Tasneem, 23 for Geetha Yogananda.

Tasneem thanking the party leaders said the JD(S) gave her an opportunity to serve the city and its people. JD(S) gives more priority for minorities. The party facilitated the first Muslim Mayor, Arif Hussian, in 1996. Later, Congress corporator Ayub Khan served as mayor in 2008.

Women from different communities had served as mayor of the city, but, Tasneem is the first Muslim woman to be elected as Mayor of Mysuru.

Tasneem, a BA Graduate from Maharani's College, was proud for being the first citizen and thanked party supremo H D Deve Gowda, leaders H D Kumaraswamy, MLAs Sa Ra Mahesh, G T Devegowda, K S Rangappa, and her colleagues in the Mysuru City Corporation. Tasneem extended her gratitude to her voters, who voted her for the second time.  

'Mysuru is known for cleanliness. Thus, my first priority is to maintain cleanliness and I will work towards retaining the 'Clean city' tag. The city is facing issues related to street lights among others for many days. I will make prompt attempts to resolve them,' she said.

JD(S) city president K T Cheluvegowda said the party nominated Tasneem for mayor's post as per the suggestion from the party supremo H D Deve Gowda and other leaders. There were other aspirants, but, they were convinced and nominated Tasneem, he said.

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.

Bengaluru, Apr 18: Private unaided schools in the state that were demanding fees from parents in the name of online classes and taking online admissions will face action under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, the Karnataka government said.

The Department of Public Instructions has warned school management of action against such educational institutes if they violate the rules. Following complaints from several parents and also from private school management associations, Minister for Primary and Secondary Education S Suresh Kumar discussed the issue with officials from the department during a recent meeting and directed them to initiate action against such academies.

In a guideline issued on Saturday, the department said, "Schools can conduct online classes. But are not permitted to collect the fee from parents until further orders from the department."