Mangaluru model Soujanya Hegde to vie for Mrs India Worldwide title

Mangaluru, July 1: The district administration has imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 in entire Dakshina Kannada between 8pm and 5am in the entire month of July.

Notice in this regard was issued today by Deputy Commissioner Sindhu B Roopesh. The order will come into force with immediate and will be in place ill July 31, the DC said.

The decision was taken days after Karnataka government took steps to tighten covid restriction and imposed lockdown from 8pm to 5am. 

Under the imposed Section 144, the presence or movement of one or more persons in public places are prohibited. Besides, the gathering of any sort anywhere, including religious places subject to certain conditions in view of the COVID-19 pandemic will also be restricted. 
 

Mangaluru, Mar 7: Deputy Chief Minister Dr. Ashwatha Narayana said journalists are facing a challenging task of functioning with credibility while also upholding their professional ethics in this age of globalization where monetary aspects have gained great significance.

Inaugurating the 35th state-level Journalists’ Conference at the Kudmul Rangarao Town Hall on Saturday which was hosted by the DK District Working Journalists’ Union the Deputy CM also said that journalists should refrain from giving priority to political news as that does not serve any purpose for the common man.

Dharmadhikari of the Dharmasthala Temple Dr. D Veerendra Heggade was the chief guest at the event. The souvenir brought out to commemorate the occasion was released by Taranga Editor Sandhya Pai. The Deputy CM also inaugurated a cartoon exhibition organized on the occasion.

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.