Maiden ‘Mangalorean Carnival 2017’ in Dubai on Oct 20

Bengaluru, May 10: Karnataka on Sunday reported 59 new cases of coronavirus, taking the total number of cases in the state to 848, informed state health department.
Out of the total number of cases, 422 people have been discharged and 31 have died due to the infection in the state.
The health department further informed that six COVID-19 patients are currently in the Intensive Care Unit.

Udupi, May 17: A total of 1,460 migrant labourers left for Uttar Pradesh from Indrali Railway Station in Udupi in Shramik Special train on Sunday.

This is the first train to ferry migrant labourers from Udupi. As many as 236 from Karkala, 323 from Kundapura, 901 labourers from Brahmavar, Kaup and Udupi left for their native villages.

More than 2,000 labourers had gathered at the railway station and only 1,460 labourers received tickets to travel.

Those who did not receive tickets were disappointed and got into heated arguments with the officials.

The labourers were promised that they will receive tickets to another train, that would depart from Udupi before May 20. One bogie of the train was reserved for pregnant women, women and children.

As many as 1,712 from Jharkhand, 770 from Odisha, 977 from West Bengal, 1,600 from Bihar, 379 from Madhya Pradesh, 280 from Chattisgarh, 110 from Uttarkhand, 379 from Rajasthan had registered on Seva Sindhu portal.

Additional Deputy Commissioner B Sadashiva Prabhu said that there are plans to make arrangements to send migrant labourers from UP, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand.

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.