Honest bus conductor Ansar returns gold worth Rs 1 lakh to owner

Bengaluru, Feb 18: Deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi was elected to the legislative council on Monday and although it was a done deal that he would win, a vote from across the aisle spiced up the election.

Counting was conducted soon after ballots were cast and Savadi polled 113 of the 120 votes cast, including the vote of disgruntled JD(S) legislator GT Devegowda. Seven votes were declared invalid. Members of the two opposition parties — Congress and JD(S) — abstained from voting.

The election was necessitated following the resignation of Rizwan Arshad of the Congress. Rizwan resigned after he was elected to the legislative assembly from the Shivajinagar constituency in the assembly bypolls held for 15 seats in December last year.

BR Anil Kumar, who was initially promised the support of both Congress and JD(S) was supposed to contest as an independent candidate. However, as both parties refused to support him at the last minute, he withdrew, paving the way for Savadi’s victory.

The BJP has 117 members in the 225-member assembly, but N Mahesh of the BSP and two independents, H Nagesh and Sharath Bachchegowda, besides GT Devegowda also voted, taking the total electorate to 120 (including the speaker). BJP’s SA Ramadas did not turn up because of health reasons.

“I would like to thank all those who were responsible for my victory. Special thanks to leaders of my party and chief minister BS Yediyurappa, who gave me the opportunity to be the BJP candidate,” said Savadi.

Winning this council election was crucial for Savadi to retain his ministry as he was not an elected member of either of the houses. Rules mandate that a non-member must get elected either to the assembly or council within six months after taking over as minister. February 20 was the deadline for Savadi, who had lost 2018 assembly polls from Athani, to get elected.

Officials in the assembly secretariat said seven votes were invalid because voters had wrongly marked their choices on ballot paper. According to norms, a voter has to mark numerical one, two and three against the names of the candidates in order of preference. Marking only numerical one is allowed. However, six ballots had a tick mark, while a voter had registered a cross mark. Since it was a secret ballot, it was not known who the MLAs were whose votes were invalid.

“The ballot papers bear serial numbers and they are randomly distributed. It is virtually impossible to say who a voter cast his or her vote for,” said assembly secretary MK Vishalakashi, the retuning officer for the bypoll.

Bengaluru, Mar 20: The high court on Thursday directed the government to notify on its official website the penal provisions to be enforced against private schools violating norms relating to fees and safety of students, among other things. A division bench of chief justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka granted six weeks to the authorities to comply while disposing of a PIL filed by advocate NP Amrutesh.

Earlier, the state government submitted a memo stating that necessary amendments have been brought to Karnataka Education Act in 2017. It said any breach of students' safety entails a minimum jail term of six months and Rs 1 lakh fine for a convicted employee or member of the management. Any institution found guilty by the District Education Regulatory Authority will face disaffiliation and must pay a fine of Rs 10 lakh, the memo said.

Schools collecting donations and other fees beyond what is prescribed can be fined up to Rs 10 lakh and they must refund the excess fee.

In relation to schools charging for applications and brochures, the state capped their prices at Rs 5 and Rs 20 respectively, by issuing a gazzette notification 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.