M A Gafoor is new chief of Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation

Mangaluru, Feb 7: In an attempt to promote menstrual hygiene among women, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) has installed vending machines and incinerators to dispense and dispose off sanitary napkins at 10 bus stands of the state including Mangaluru.

The machines have been installed inside the women's washroom and women can purchase sanitary napkins from the vending machines by inserting five rupee coins.

Nearly 100 napkins can be stored in the vending machines at a time and housekeeping personnel have been instructed to replenish the stock, as and when required.

While directions on how to use the machine have been displayed near the machines, people can get seek assistance from housekeeping staff if needed.

Initially, the machines were installed at two depots in Bengaluru on a pilot basis and in the second phase it has been extended to 10 KSRTC bus depots.

Mangaluru, Jun 28: In an attempt to curb fast spreading Coronavirus and to bring discipline among the public to follow the guidelines and also as it was found difficult to control the visitors, the City Corporation Mayor Diwakar has ordered closure of the office for one week with immediate effect from Monday.

Public will be banned from entering the MCC building for a period of one week from Monday, he said.

In a circular the Mayor has requested the public to co-operate and help the administration to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

However, a help desk will be set up outside the MCC building where people can submit their applications and requests.

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.