I don’t grow money on trees: HDK on delay in allocation of funds

Mangaluru, May 2:  Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee Spokesperson P V Mohan on Saturday urged the district administration to find the source of coronavirus in Dakshina Kannada (DK) district.

He asked the district administration to ascertain from where a woman from Bantwal's Kasba contracted virus on April 19.

''We do not want to convert Dakshina Kannada into Nanjangud,'' Mr Mohan said referring to the mysterious case of Patient 52 from Nanjangud who has been identified as the main source of virus to the rest of the positive individuals in Nanjangud.

Mangaluru, June 10: The first direct repatriation flight from Damma to Mangaluru International Airport under Vande Bharat Mission will be operated on June 21.

Thousands of people from coastal districts of Karnataka are stranded without flights in different parts of Saudi Arabia after the announcement of covid lockdown in March this year. 

Even though the government of India launched Vande Bharat Mission to repatriate Indian expatriate through special flights, no flight was scheduled from Saudi Arabia to Mangaluru.

Several organisations had exerted pressure on the government of India and government of Karnataka to bring back stranded Kannadigas from Saudi Arabia.  

With the sole intention of helping the stranded Kannadigas, a few philanthropists in Saudi Arabia last month formed an NGO called Saudi Kannadigas Humanity Forum under the leadership of Zakariya Bajpe and Sheikh Expertise. 

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.