Muslims who keep beard without moustache are fundamentalists: UP shia wakf board chief

Mangaluru, Apr 25: The Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL) has extended vital assistance to hundreds of migrant workers, destitute and needy families during the COVID-19 crisis through its CSR fund.

The lockdown has left thousands of people including migrant workers and destitute in the district, in the lurch. MRPL, using its corporate social responsibility fund through the Dakshina Kannada district administration, has sponsored 50,000 kg rice for the benefit of these needy citizens, a company release here said.

MRPL also donated grocery kits comprising boiled rice, dal, rava, sugar and tea to the needy families in the district, it said.

Bengaluru, Mar 6: The Karnataka Congress on Thursday termed the budget for fiscal 2020-21 presented by the B.S. Yediyurappa government as the "weakest ever state budget".

"This is the weakest budget ever that our state has had. There is no clear cut provision in the budget for industrial growth or to generate jobs. No clarity on department wise allocation," tweeted Congress.

Congress leader Dinesh Gundu Rao said he did not expect such a bad budget which has discriminated on agriculture and education sectors.

"The state budget does not mention major irrigation projects like Kaveri valley and Krishna. No farmers loan waiver," noted Rao.

The opposition party has criticised the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that the potential of Karnataka was not realized to generate revenue through this budget.

Assailing the additional tax on petrol and diesel, Congress said the development will lead to price rise and is a huge disappointment.

"People are reeling under high inflation and reduction in income. BJP has rubbed salt into injury by further increasing prices and providing no relief to common man," said the party.

Bhalki MLA and Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee working president Eshwar Bhimanna Khandre pointed out that the Centre gave the state only Rs 1,869 crore, despite a loss of Rs 35,160 crore in 2019.

Calling stamp duty reduction for housing within Rs 20 lakhs as an insult to people, Congress questioned the Chief Minister and BJP to first show where in Bengaluru does one get housing within Rs 20 lakh.

"This is mockery of people. No mention or allotment to universal housing programme that Congress government had delivered," claimed Congress.

Focusing on Karnataka capital Bengaluru, Congress slammed the BJP saying no proper revenue policy has been mooted.

"Last mile connectivity issue not addressed. Drinking water issue is not mentioned. No mention of peripheral ring road. No mention of Akrama-Sakrama and no thought process has gone in while planning Bengaluru," tweeted the party.

The party said Yediyurappa has admitted that there is a financial crisis in his budget speech.

"He admits Rs 8,883 crore aid has been cut, around Rs 11,000 crore state share from Centre has been cut. No additional allocation for flood relief. What is stopping him and 25 members of Parliament to question the centre," observed Congress.

Former chief minister Siddaramaiah mocked Yediyurappa that though he calls himself a farmer''s son, he delivered an anti-farmer budget.

"No one will benefit from this budget. A complete failure to boost the economy, to realize inclusive development and to improve standard of living," he tweeted.

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.