Over 160 expats accept Islam in Saudi every day; 46K conversions last year

Bengaluru, Apr 13: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa today held a review meeting with his cabinet colleagues and senior officials regarding prevailing coronavirus situation and several other important issues in the state.

Chief Secretary TM Vijay Bhaskar was also present at the meeting. The possible situation once the COVID-19 lockdown is lifted was discussed along with the financial status of the state government and how to mobilise additional resources, sources said.

The Chief Minister also appealed to sugar factory owners to clear the pending payment to the tune of Rs 2834 crore to farmers in 11 districts. He also said that the government has released Rs 45 crore compensation to farmers for loss of paddy crop in Raichur and Koppal District due to hailstorm based on a report submitted by District Collectors.

Amid the lockdown distribution of free milk to the poor will also be continued for one more week, sources added.

The meeting also decided to speed up disposal of cases related to the regularisation of unauthorised constructions which are pending before the High Court and Supreme Court.

In addition to this, the government is planning to auction more than 12,000 corner sites lying idle in Bengaluru. An amendment to the law governing permission to allow sites in private and co-operative housing societies will be made. Hundreds of societies are waiting for approval from the government for releasing the sites, sources said.

It was also decided to utilise Rs 1,000 crore available at Rajiv Gandhi Health University to upgrade medical college hospitals.

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.