Mangaluru gears up for Dasara 2016

Bengaluru, Jul 12: KCTET 2020: Attention candidates, the Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister has confirmed the exam dates for Karnataka Common Entrance Test, KCET 2020.

As per information, KCET 2020 will be held between July 30 and July 31.

Karnataka Common Entrance Test or KCET is an examination which is held for admission to BTech courses in the state’s institutes.

The Higher Education Minister C N Ashwathnarayan, took to twitter to confirm the KCET dates. The Minister tweeted:

“The K-CET 2020 examinations will be held on the decided dates of July 30 & July 31. All the best to all the students!”

Details regarding KCET exam centers, time, and schedule will be mentioned in the admit card. Candidates can download their admit card fro the official website of KEA i.e. cetonline.karnataka.gov.in.

KCET 2020 was earlier scheduled to be held from April 22 to April 24, 2020, however, due to the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, KEA postponed KCET 2020 exams.

Mangaluru, May 23: Two more persons tested positive for covid-19 in Dakshina Kannada today taking the district's tally to 65.

One among them is a 30-year-old man who had returned from Maharashtra and was under quarantine. He underwent test at a private lab and was tested positive.

The other one is a 41-year-old woman who is a resident of Shirlalu in Beltangady and had symptoms of influenza-like illness. 

She was urged by residents in the surroundings of her house to go for a test. She was shifted to Wenlock COVID hospital in the morning on Saturday.

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.