Now Saudi women may drive thousands of NRI drivers out of the kingdom

Mangaluru, June 21: The first ever repatriation flight from Saudi Arabia’s Dammam Karnataka’s Mangaluru under Vande Bharat Mission (VBM) today brought home around 165 stranded passengers. 

The IndiGo flight took off from Dammam International Airport at 11 a.m. (Saudi time) and landed at Mangaluru International Airport at 6:30 p.m.

The stranded passengers included pregnant women, senior citizens and those who are in need of emergency medical treatment are on board.

The passengers were screened at the Airport before being despatched for institutional quarantine in special buses. 

Even though a few charter flights arranged by a couple of NRI entrepreneurs have already repatriated hundreds of stranded people from Dammam to Mangaluru, the government of India had not operated any repatriation flight under VBM on this sector so far. 

Saudi Kannadigas Humanity Forum (SKHF), an NGO which came into existence to help the stranded Kannadigas in Saudi Arabia during covid-19 lockdown had been successful in persuading the government of India operate a flight on Dammam-Mangaluru sector under VBM. 

SKHF has also set up an online portal for those who were in need of emergency repatriation. In today’s flight around 100 passengers have obtained seats through SKHF.

Watch on Youtube

Bengaluru, May 8: 45 more COVID-19 cases have been reported from Karnataka, taking the total number of coronavirus cases in the state to 750, the state Health Department said on Friday.

According to the Health Department, the total cases include 371 discharged cases and 30 deaths.

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.