Man who couldn’t pass Class 10 exam cheats and loots 16 women across Karnataka

Mangaluru, July 18: The Dakshina Kannada district administration is likely to earmark a common burial ground in the wake of growing resistance from residents of various localities in Mangaluru against burial of Covid-19 victims in their vicinity.

Recently, following protests by residents on Bolar, the body of a Covid-19 victim remained in the ambulance for hours together. The residents refused to allow the victim to be laid to rest at a burial ground attached to a mosque. The victim, who had been a resident of Idya in Surathkal, was subsequently laid to rest after DC’s intervention.

In a bid to avoid such instances in the future, the district administration has identified a burial ground on the outskirts of Mangaluru. 

Former minister and incumbent Mangaluru MLA UT Khader said that he had discussed the problem at length with the officials of the Dakshina Kannada district administration, and had suggested they look for a relatively isolated space on the outskirts of Mangaluru city in order to avoid confrontation with the public.

“A parcel of land at Badaga Yekkuru, some 20km from the city has been identified as being suitable for the burial ground, but the district administration is yet to take a final decision,” Khader said.

Mangaluru, Apr 4: Dakshina Kannada district deputy commissioner (DC) Sindhu B Rupesh in an official reminder has ordered milk unions to disburse about 5,000 litres of milk to residents of notified and non-notified slums, construction labourers and migrant labourers and their families in shelters in the district.

A decision regarding the free distribution of milk to such needy families was taken in a meeting by the chief minister on April 1.

The DC has ordered cooperative milk unions in the district to distribute milk to such families from April 4 till April 14.

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.