Karnataka Govt firm on Tipu Jayanti despite intelligence warning

Mangaluru, Apr 1: Dakshina Kannada District in-charge minister Kota Srinivas Poojary on Tuesday announced that essential shops including grocery stores, fruits and vegetable shops will be allowed to open from Wednesday between 0700 hrs to 1200 hrs across the district.

Speaking at a press conference, he said that Milk, Medical, Gas distribution, Petrol Bunks, Banks will be opened as usual, he informed adding that Central Market and the Suratkal Market will remain closed.

With the Dakshin Kannada district administration relaxing the lockdown from 0600 hrs to 1500 hrs to purchase essential commodities, panic-stricken citizens rushed to the shops early in the morning itself.

Bengaluru, Jul 5: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa has announced an ex-gratia of Rs 5 lakh each for the families of a youth and a child, who died due to a landslide at Gurupura in Mangaluru.

"The Chief Minister announces Rs 5 lakh each compensation to Safwan (17) and Shehla (10) who died due to landslide at Gurupura, Mangaluru. Houses will also be built for people who lost houses at Bodanthilla, Dakshina Kannada," an official said.

The incident occurred on Sunday afternoon.
The State Disaster Management Authority said that 57 people and 262 animals lost their lives in flood, rainfall and lightning-related incidents in Karnataka between April 1, 2020, and July 5, 2020. 

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.