London to Kolkata bus service? Yes, it’s real! Viral pics of 1957 make netizens curious

Bengaluru, Apr 11: Former prime minister H D Deve Gowda claimed the lockdown decision was taken in 'haste' without forethought because of which farmers and the working class were 'suffering' and suggested measures to mitigate the impact. The state government should have consulted experienced citizens, officials, progressive farmers, farmer organisations and wholesale traders about the pros and cons before lockdown, he said in a letter to Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, while highlighting that 61 per cent of the state's population depended on agriculture.

Because of the "hasty decision taken without any preparations", farmers of the country and the state are facing financial distress," he said in the April 9 letter, a copy of which was released to media here on Friday. The JD(S) patriarch suggested taking up some measures, including ensuring no restrictions on agriculture activities, procurement of horticulture produce at a fair price, relaxing export curbs on it, to provide relief to farmers, agriculture labourers, and daily wage workers.

On Sunday, Gowda had said he has assured Prime Minister Narendra Modi of his support in the nation's battle against COVID-19 pandemic when the latter called him to discuss the situation. In his letter to the chief minister, Gowda said: "...the lockdown implemented to control the spread of coronavirus has led our farmers into despair and put their lives into a burning fire.

This lockdown looks like a decision taken at haste without proper thinking and forethought for our farmers, agriculture labourers, and daily wage workers." He said the lockdown decision was taken after remaining 'quite' for about two months since the first corona infection was reported in the country on January 30. Among the suggestions made by the former prime minister include, procurement of horticulture produce at a fair price like in the case of milk from villages by the government through related organisations like Karnataka Horticulture Federation, HOPCOMS among others.

As horticulture produce was perishable, there should be no restriction on its procurement, transportation and marketing; all processing related activities of horticulture produce should be given relaxation from the lockdown, he said. Gowda also called for relaxation on exports for horticulture produce and its processed items. There should be no restriction on agriculture activities; a national grid has to be set up for marketing of horticulture produce, he said.

If such measures were not taken up immediately, the government will have to pay compensation to farmers for losses. Lack of remedial measures would lead to a shortage of supply, leading to rebellion from the people and may result in farmers' suicides and bringing about a situation that might be more grave than coroanvirus, he said.

Jan 2: A year after 12,000 acres of forests in Bandipur went up in smoke, the Karnataka Forest Department is gearing up for the summer even as the Forest Survey of India (FSI) has cautioned that 22.78 lakh acres (9,222 sq km) or about 20% of the green cover spread across three districts in the central part of the state is fire-prone.

The FSI studied forest fire incidents across the country between 2004-05 and 2017 before coming up with state-specific inputs.

According to the 13-year observation, Karnataka has 7,352 “fire points” or areas measuring 5 km X 5 km with frequent fire incidents.

Though the number is lower compared to states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha with over 20,000 points, the sheer spread of the fire-prone area itself is a challenge for the Karnataka Forest Department.

According to data, about three lakh acres (1,199.9 sq km) of forest area is very highly fire prone with 26 to 52 fire incidents in 13 years. This is followed by 7.6 lakh acres (3,067 sq km) of “highly fire prone” areas with an average of one to two incidents every year.

Almost all of the “red alert” areas are concentrated in Uttara Kannada, Chikkmagaluru, Shivamogga and Chamarajanagar districts. As temperature rises at the end of January, so does the risk of forest fires, requiring officials to be on vigil till the end of summer.

After an investigation into the Bandipur blaze revealed that faulty fire lines and poor supervision were the reason for the spread of the fire, the department has come up with a multi-pronged approach to prevent similar incidents this year.

“After the Bandipur incident, we have created a fire cell and a standard operating procedure (SOP) which everyone has to follow. Firstly, a fire management plan is prepared and approved by a competent authority.

The SOP has well defined firelines which have to be executed by December-end and burning must be completed by January 15,”  Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) Punati Sridhar told DH.

He said that to ensure its strict implementation, GPS readings of firelines are to be submitted for random verification.

“All the required equipment from fire jackets to shoes, gloves, backpack sprayers and tractors mounted with 2,000-5,000 litre tanks with high pressure pumps will be deployed at vantage points,” he said.

In addition, the department’s fire cell works in collaboration with the Karnataka State Remote Sensing Applications Centre (KSRSAC) to give fire alerts within half and hour of an area catching fire and detected by satellites.

“Earlier, the gap used to be four hours by when the fire would have spread beyond control. Now, with reduced time gap, it would be easier to control fire early,” he added.

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.