Karnataka launches job portal connecting employers and job seekers

Mumbai, June 9: A 45-year-old doctor posted in the 108 ambulance service at Malad railway station in Mumbai died of COVID-19 after two hospitals refused admission, in spite of the fact that he was a frontline warrior against coronavirus.

The victim is Dr Shaukat Ali, who was working with the 108 ambulance service for the last four years. A few days ago, he got his blood tests done after his health deteriorated. The result stated typhoid fever following which he started getting treatment at home in Malwani.

Ali's family ran from pillar to post to get him hospitalised in either a private or government hospital, to no avail.

"On Friday, his condition worsened and he started feeling breathless. Despite us calling the 108 ambulance service, no one picked up the call. So after waiting for a while, I and uncle's colleague, Dr Nigam, rushed him to SK Patil hospital in Malad East in an auto. But they refused us stating they were admitting only COVID-19 patients.”

“Then we took him to Desai Hospital, where doctors were initially ready to admit him but later refused stating lack of beds. They said we could take him home as his condition was fine," Zubair Shaikh, Ali's nephew said.

"But his condition worsened. So, I called Dr Nigam and we managed to admit him in Shatabdi hospital. On Sunday, when his results came out stating that he had COVID-19, doctors had already put him on a ventilator, where he passed away in the evening," he added.

Zubair further said, "Had the doctors at Desai Memorial Hospital admitted him, my uncle would have been alive today. It is a matter of great regret that a doctor, who was risking his life during this pandemic, could not get help from his own government hospitals."

Ali's wife and his two children's are in UP, while he was staying with his elder daughter who had recently appeared for HSC exams and preparing for NEET.

Bengaluru, Jul 9: Bringing to the fore the dangers frontline workers face in combating the deadly coronavirus, 395 policemen have tested positive for the infection since the outbreak of the pandemic in Bengaluru. This includes five deaths, Inspector General of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police (Administration) Hemant Nimbalkar told media persons.

He said as of Thursday, 190 have been cured while 200 are under treatment. Twenty police stations have been sealed, he added.

He claimed the Bengaluru police has suffered the most compared to any department, organisation or institution because the force is deployed in the field and dealing with the situation.

The infection among police is highest despite training being given to them on how to protect themselves from the coronavirus.

According to him, every morning duty charter is given to the police personnel where they are told how to avoid getting the infection and handle the situation if they find symptoms of coronavirus.

"Despite taking all the precautions, infection in our department is high because we are the ones who are on the road.

We are meeting hundreds of people whom we don't know, whether they are Covid infected or not," Nimbalkar said.

Along with the policemen, their families too are at risk of contracting the virus.

An assistant sub-inspector at VV Puram police station was the first casualty in the Bengaluru police on June 13.

A heart patient, who was on leave due to ill health, he collapsed at home and 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.