Dr. Rathi Devi's book on menopause released

Bengaluru, Jun 6: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Saturday said hotels and restaurants would be allowed to re-open, but the precautionary measures laid down by the Centre against coronavirus were mandatory.

The Chief Minister on Friday held a meeting with the tourism and transport department, also stakeholders, regarding revival of tourism in the state.

Hotels associations and transport companies have said they would follow the guidelines issued by the government, an official press release said here.

The Karnataka government had said it would go by the Centre's direction on opening religious places of worship, shopping malls, hotels, restaurants and other hospitality services on June 8.

Buses, hotels and taxi owners association placed some demands at the meeting, the release said, adding that Yediyurappa informed them that he would examine their demands and take appropriate decisions.

The Chief Minister also released a handout regarding the guidelines that need to be followed as the tourism department is opening hotels, guest houses and tourist destinations.

Deputy Chief Minister Laxman Savadi, Tourism Minister C T Ravi and senior officials of the department participated in the meeting.

The government had, on Thursday, said safaris, trekking, jungle lodges and resorts in areas that fall outside the COVID-19 containment zones can re-open provided they adhere to social distancing, hygiene as issued by the governments.

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.