'I have failed as an entrepreneur… I gave up': V G Siddhartha’s alleged letter goes viral

Bengaluru, Mar 5: Karnataka government on Thursday set aside Rs 400 crore to construct twin towers building with 25 floors here at Anand Rao Circle to facilitate all government departments to function at one place.

"To facilitate all the Government Departments to function in one building, a "Twin-Towers" building with 25 storeys will be constructed at Arland Rao Circle, Bengaluru, with an expenditure of Rs 400 crore," said Karnataka Chief Minister Yediyurappa while presenting the budget in the state Assembly.

He further said that the road cross-over facility for pedestrians other than metro commuters will be provided through 24 metro stations.

"The construction of 56 km long Outer Ring Road - Airport Metro from Central Silk Board junction to Bengaluru International Airport via K R Puram and Hebbala at an estimated cost of Rs 14,500 crore will be commenced during the year 2020-21," he said.

Rs 1,000 crore budget each have been announced for the restoration of Bengaluru roads for two years, 276 Karnataka public school for their infrastructure development.

Mangaluru, May 4: District Health Officer Dr Ramachandra Bairi on Monday said that a special team, comprising of six members, has been constituted to find the source of Corona infection in Dakshina Kannada .

The team is expected to file its report by May 6. It is still not clear if Bantwal was the source was the infection or not.

He said 1st phase of investigation in this regard is complete and the samples taken on the 12th day will give a clear picture.

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.