Mangaluru: Dozens injured as gallery collapses during Pro-Kabaddi match

Mangaluru, Jun 27: The second flight chartered by the Karnataka Sports and Cultural Club (KSCC) to repatriate stranded Kannadigas in UAE landed at Mangalore International Airport at 6 p.m. today.

The Air Arabia flight with 171 passengers took off from Sharjah international airport around 1 am (UAE Time). The flight had 18 pregnant women, 9 children, 3 infants, 8 senior citizens, 20 people with medical emergencies besides those have lost jobs, stranded visit visa holders and those who had reported deaths in their families.

KSCC had set up help desk to finalize list of passengers and guide them throughout the process. All the legal procedures were carried out smoothly.

KSCC president Mohammed Ismail accorded a warm welcome to all passengers. Rapid tests for Covid-19 were conducted before departure. Mandatory quarantine for all the passengers was arranged in three hotels in Mangaluru for a period of seven days.

KSCC office bearers Ismail, Javed, Safwan and volunteers were present at the airport during the time of departure. KSCC has expressed its gratitude to Consulate General, DC of DK district, Umar U H and Ataullah Jokkate for their support.

Belagavi, Mar 10: Around 6,000 chickens were buried alive by some poultry farm owners here as the rate of flesh in the market dropped even below the cost price due to Coronavirus scare.

The poultry farm who buried the chickens on Monday evening belonged to Lolasuru village in Gokak Taluk of the district.

One of the owners, Nazir Makandar, said that there was no demand for chicken because of threat of Coronavirus.

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.