Mangaluru: New Kannada translation of Quran released

Bhatkal, May 9: A day after 12 covid-19 positive cases reported from Bhatkal, seven more tested positive for the coronavirus in the town today. 

The new patients are: a six-month-old baby, a two-and-a half-year-old child, two girls aged 17 and 23, a 50-year-old woman and two elderly men aged 65 and 68 years.

The source of all these cases is said to be the First Neuro hospital located at Padil in Mangaluru where a covid-19 patient from Bantwal had undergone treatment a month ago. Around 20 days ago an 18-year-old girl from Bhatkal, who had been to the same hospital was tested positive for the covid-19. 

After the confirmation of 12 covid-19 positive cases yesterday, the throat swab of 60 people, who were in contact with them were sent for testing. Among them seven people – six relatives and a friend – were tested positive today.

Also Read: 12 new covid-19 positive cases in Bhatkal

Mangaluru, May 5: The principal of St Agnes College, Mangaluru, Sr Dr Jeswina AC attained superannuation after 28 years of dedicated and fruitful service.

Sister Dr Venissa AC, the associate professor of the department of Economics, has been appointed by the Apostolic Carmel Educational Society Management as the principal of the college. Sister Roopa Rodrigues AC. has been appointed as the vice principal.

Sr Dr Venissa AC was earlier serving as the vice principal at St Agnes College.

The college and the management has thanked Sr Dr Jeswina AC for the dedicated services she has rendered to the college.

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.