Muslim man donates refrigerator-truck to carry vegetable to Hindu temple

Mangaluru, May 19: With lockdown 4.0 coming into force, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) started bus services from Mangaluru to various destinations today.

According to officials, buses started plying from Mangaluru to Bengaluru, Mysuru, Shivamogga, Hubballi and other areas with limited passengers. A bus, which left for Bengaluru from Mangaluru had less than 30 passengers on board.

“Depending on the demand, the buses will be operated with 50% of the capacity. Measures have been taken to ensure that social distancing norms are adhered to while purchasing tickets from the counter,” said S N Arun, KSRTC Divisional Controller.

However, the KSRTC is yet to take a decision on operating Nagarasarige buses in the city. 

“Only those destinations, which can be reached by 7 pm has been considered by the KSRTC while operating the buses. As a result, after 11 am, no buses will travel to Bengaluru from Mangaluru. Further, permission will not be accorded for the travelling of pregnant women, children below 10 years old and senior citizens above 60 years old. Thermal scanning is used for checking the temperature of the passengers before boarding the buses. All the buses are sanitised after each trip,” he said.

Further, he said the contact number, name and address of the passengers are collected by the officials during the travel.

Bengaluru, Jan 16: Senior Congress leader K J George on Thursday appeared before the Enforcement Directorate officials here in connection with a FEMA case.

The former minister is being investigated by the ED for probable violation of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act.

The ED had recently issued summons to George.

Speaking to reporters after appearing before the ED, George said he has answered to the officials' queries and will cooperate further also.

"ED had issued me summons, as a law abiding citizen, I have answered and gave documents to whatever they asked.

Further also if they call me...I will cooperate and provide necessary documents," he said, without divulging any details.

George clarified that no summons has been issued by the ED to members of his family.

"If required they (ED officials) will call me again, and I'm ready to cooperate," the congress leader added.

Last year, the president of the Karnataka Rashtra Samithi Ravi Krishna Reddy had complained to the ED seeking a probe into the alleged money laundering and properties held by George and his family members in the United States.

Responding to a question about a defamation case filed by him against those who have levelled the allegations, George said "Just because ED has called me for questioning, I'm not proved guilty."

"Anyone can complain to agencies like the Income Tax or ED or Lokayukta, but my only objection is with going to the press to project someone as guilty," he said.

"...going to the press with an intention to do a propaganda against me..someone who is in public life-- to project me as guilty is wrong, so I have filed defamation case stating the allegations are false," he added.

George is the third senior Congress leader from Karnataka to face an ED probe after D K Shivakumar and B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan.

Shivakumar was arrested by the agency in a money laundering case and was kept in Tihar Jail, until he got bail in October, while Khan was summoned in connection with the multi-crore IMA group Ponzi scam case.

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.