Karnataka govt to build guest house for Kannadiga pilgrims in Ayodhya

Mangaluru: Continuing the relief work they started in the wake of the Corona Lockdown, ‘Team B-Human’ a local social organization is reaching out to the migrant workers who are stuck here in the region, unable to return to the homes.

Team of volunteers of the organization reached out to the migrant workers and distributed essential items including clothes and footwear of men, women, and kids.

Earlier, the organization had reached out to thousands of migrant workers and needy families and had helped them with food kits, Ramadan Kits along with medical assistance to many.

Several migrant workers recently moved back to their respective states, villages with their families, while others, unable to move back for various reasons are stuck here facing several difficulties and plights. The relief work by ‘Team B Human’ has helped several families of migrant workers in these distressing times.

Udupi, Apr 20: Patients from outside the district visiting Udupi for emergency treatment should be in possession of a certificate, issued by the district health officer or taluk health officer, that they do not have any symptoms of Covid-19.

The decision was taken during an expert committee meeting chaired by Udupi Deputy Commissioner Jagadeesha on Sunday.

The Deputy Commissioner said he will send a letter to all Deputy Commissioners in this regard. The patients from other districts will be treated in various hospitals in Udupi, only in case of emergency.

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.