Young scientists from Puttur make it big internationally

Mangaluru, Feb 12: More than 7,000 people at Mangalore International Airport (MIA) and over 1,000 at the New Mangalore Port (NMP) have undergone thermal screening for the novel coronavirus in the past few days, a taluk health official said on Wednesday.

A few more ships are scheduled to arrive at the port and all precautionary measures to check the ship’s passengers and crew are ready, he said.

Soon after a positive case of deadly pathogen surfaced in Kerala, the district health officials here actively started monitoring all entry points in the bordering district. 

Apart from Mangaluru, there is bus connectivity to Puttur, Sullia, Bantwal, Dharmasthala and Subrahmanya from Kerala. More than eight to 10 trains arrive at Mangaluru daily from Kerala.

Hence, it is impossible to take up screening of all the vehicles arriving from Kerala, sources in District Health and Family Welfare said.

Chikkamagaluru, Jan 28: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Public Works Govind Karjol on Tuesday said that he is ready to quit if the post asks him to do so to pave way for smooth expansion of the Cabinet.

Responding to a question from media persons on the issue here, he said he was ready to quit his post any time.

“If the party asks me to resign now, I will send back my official car and return by bus”, he added.

Further, he opined that there should not be efforts to seek a berth in the Cabinet based on caste.

“Putting pressure on the party based on caste is not right. The party will consider those who worked for the party and also take district-wise representation into account while filling up the vacancies”, he added.

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.