Joshi calls Siddaramaiah a ‘Mullah’, slams IGP who averted riots in coastal Karnataka

Tumkur, Jun 2: Karnataka Agriculture Minister BC Patil on Monday said that state will not be affected due to locust swarm as it has moved to other states.

"There will be no effect as locust insects diverted to other states after they came from Pakistan. We were also worried and were prepared to face it, luckily we will not be affected by insects," he said.

Locust is a type of grasshoppers and moves in large numbers and devastates crops. Several parts of Rajasthan including Ganganagar have reported locust attacks.

There is a prediction of another attack in June this year.

Mangaluru/Udupi, Jun 7: Coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi have recorded 17 and 13 new coronavirus positive cases between 5 p.m. on June 6 and 5 p.m. on June 7. 

16 among 17 new covid patients in Dakshina Kannada are returnees from Maharashtra, while one returned from Goa recently.

Maharashtra returnees comprise 14 males, including three teenagers t, and two females aged 32 and 41. The Goa returnee is a 32-year-old male.

All of them have all been admitted to the designated COVID hospital in the district.

With this, the total tally of coronavirus cases in Dakshina Kannada has risen to 203, out of which 47 are currently active. As many as 150 patients have recovered and been discharged, and seven have died.

Among the 13 in Udupi, 12 are Maharashtra returnees, while process of contact tracing of one patient, a 30-year-old woman, is going on.

The patients comprise eight males, including a 7-year-old boy, and five females. They have all been admitted to the designated hospital.

This takes the total number of coronavirus cases in Udupi district to 902, out of which 798 are currently active, 103 discharged, and one patient has died.

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.