Orphanage Olympics held in Managluru

Udupi, Jun 28: A student appearing for the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) exams in Kaup taluk of Udupi district has tested positive for the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infection.

Officials of the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and Udupi District Health and Family Welfare Department have confirmed the report. 

The 16-year-old girl had appeared for the Kannada and Mathematics exams on June 25 and 27 respectively. 

Her throat swabs were sent for testing on June 27 after her father tested covid-19 positive. Today she too obtained positive report.  

The student is unlikely to appear for the science paper on June 29.

Meanwhile, health officers have ruled out the possibility of subjecting other students to covid-19 test as all necessary precautions such as physical distancing and usage of sanitization were taken in the examination centre.

Bengaluru, May 6: The second day of liquor sales in Karnataka on Tuesday after easing of lockdown curbs saw a nearly five-fold jump in earnings, with Rs 197 crore worth spirits being sold.

According to top Excise Department officials, 4.21 lakh cases of Indian-made liquor, comprising 36.37 lakh litres, worth Rs 182 crore and 7.02 lakh litres of beer in 0.90 lakh cases worth Rs 15 crore was sold on Tuesday.

On Monday, when sales resumed in the state, Rs 45 crore worth liquor was sold.

"We had never expected such a record sale. It's unprecedented," an Excise official who did not wish to be named said.

Liquor sales had resumed in Karnataka on Monday after a 41 day gap following the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.