New Industrial Policy will help establishment of manufacturing units in tier 2 cities: Shettar

Kollam, Mar 27: A young IAS officer in Kerala has been booked by police after he left the state violating instructions to remain under home quarantine following his recent return from honeymoon abroad, officials said on Friday.

A First Information Report has been registered against Kollam sub-collector Anupam Mishra, who hails from Uttar Pradesh, based on a report from the Health department about the violation, Kollam Superintendent of Police T Narayanan said.

Describing the action of the officer as a “serious matter”, District Collector B. Abdul Nasser said Mishra had returned to Kerala on March 19 from his Malaysia-Singapore trip and was advised to remain under quarantine, as per the protocol for overseas returnees in the backdrop of coronavirus outbreak.

On his return to Kerala from the foreign trip, Mishra had undergone medical examination and did not show symptoms. His personal staff, including gunman, have also been kept under observation.

However, the officer had left for his brother’s place in Bengaluru without informing anyone, Nasser said.

When the Collector got in touch with him, Mishra informed him that he was in Bengaluru.

“He was on leave after his marriage and took permission to travel to Malaysia and Singapore. On his return I advised him to remain under home quarantine. Seems like he left to be with his family at Bengaluru,” Nasser told PTI.

However, police said Mishra’s mobile tower location shows Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh.

Authorities came to know on Thursday that Mishra, who had been staying alone in his quarters at Kollam, was not there after health department staff, who regularly visit people in quarantine, found the lights in his house switched off, police sources said.

“The officer has gone without prior permission or leave. He did not have any symptoms of the virus. Without informing us, he left. It is a serious matter, the collector said adding Mishra has been asked to provide his current address and travel details to Bengaluru.”

When an officer leaves his jurisdiction, he is supposed to inform the government, which Mishra did not do. He has also not taken prior permission for leaving the state, the later told reporters.

Coronavirus: Conflicts on hold for now as players face a common enemy
 China bars foreign visitors as imported COVID-19 cases rise
The state government has sought an explanation from the officer in this regard.

A case has been registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 269 (Negligent Act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and 271 (disobedience to quarantine rule), police said.

Kollam, is the only district in the state, which has not reported any positive case of COVID-19 so far. A total of 176 positive cases have been reported in the state so far.

Udupi, June 19: The coronavirus has claimed second life in the coastal district of Udupi. The victim is a 54-year-old person who had returned from Mumbai.

A resident of Tekkatte in Kundapur taluk of Udupi district, the person was among four travellers that returned together from Maharashtra on June 18. 

Even though all four were asymptomatic they were home quarantined separately as per norms. According to sources, all of a sudden he collapsed at home and died. His throat swabs tested positive for the coronavirus, according to deputy commissioner G Jagadish.

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.