Mamata Poojary's Team India wins Kabaddi World Cup

Jun 19: BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday said Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray should sign an agreement with neighbouring Karnataka to avoid a repeat of flood in part of the state like it happened in August last year.

In August 2019, Kolhapur, Sangli districts and some other parts of the state faced unprecedented floods triggered by huge release of water from dams in western Maharashtra and from the Almatti dam in Karnataka.

Fadnavis said, The Maharashtra chief minister should hold an urgent meeting with the Karnataka chief minister and enter into an agreement over-discharge of water from the Almatti dam located on the border of both the states."

If water is not released from the Almatti dam in time, it will cause flooding in border areas of Maharashtra such as Kolhapur and Sangli.

"A pact between the two states would benefit both as it would help in keeping water levels in control, the former chief minister said.

The dams in the state already have sizeable water stock. It would be better if the chief minster schedules a meeting with the Karnataka chief minister regarding the same (agreement), the Leader of Opposition in the assembly said.

Kasaragod, Jun 2: Kumbala police on Tuesday arrested 20 persons on charges of misbehaving and obstructing a medical team who were on official duty for Covid-19.

Police sources said the incident occurred at Kumbala beach near here on Monday evening when a group of locals misbehaved and obstructed an eight-member medical team, comprising of doctors and health workers, from carrying out a survey to asertain whether there has been a community spread of Covid-19 in that locality.

The health team was on a mission to gather data of people who had interacted with expatriates after they had returned to hometown recently.

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.