Pray for protection from violent gau rakshaks: Minister tells Haj pilgrims

Bengaluru, Mar 30: The coronavirus scare has taken a toll on the poultry industry in Karnataka with many poultry farm owners culling the birds, insiders in the poultry industry said.

At least one lakh birds have been culled in the last one week, the sources said.

Ever since the news spread about novel coronavirus spreading rapidly, the poultry industry started feeling the heat.

The lockdown spelt further trouble for the industry with reduced business compelling farm owners to go in for the culling.

According to Muddukrishna of C N Nischchith Enterprises, a live chicken dealer in Bengaluru, the culling had taken place in Shivamogga, Kolar and other places.

"There is a drastic decline in business. There are neither customers nor enough supply of birds for sale. We are badly hit. There are many poultry farm owners who have incurred tremendous loss due to the lockdown," Muddukrishna told news agency.

Another major poultry industry owner, having his farms in Channapatna, Ramanagar, Anekal and surrounding places, said he had to get rid of at least 4,000 birds in each of these farms.

"This is not restricted to me alone. There are about 64 major poultry industries who have gone for the drastic measure of culling," said the farm owner.

He said in the last one week, at least one lakh birds have been culled as it was hard for them to maintain them.

"Each bird needs at least a kilogram of grains in three days to eat whereas each kg of poultry food costs about Rs 32. We have about two lakh birds in our farm. How can we maintain if there is no business," rued the poultry farm owner.

The industry has suffered a double whammy.

People gave up eating chicken following rumours that the novel coronavirus COVID-19 is similar to SARS, another virus.

Further, the lockdown has blocked the transportation of these birds, he added.

According to the farm owner, in the last one month, he had suffered a loss of around Rs 15 lakh and if the situation continues for the next three months, his condition would be beyond imagination.

Muddukrishna said the poultry farm association had given a memorandum to the animal husbandry and fisheries department seeking direction on the transportation of these birds.

Accordingly, the secretary in the department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries A B Ibrahim issued a circular to all the city police commissioners, deputy commissioners of the district, superintendent of police and the CEO of Zilla Panchayath on Friday that the animal husbandry services have been declared as essential services.

Ibrahim said in his circular that the production of chicken birds, sheep, goat, pigs, etc in the farm and their transportation, manufacturing feed, liquid nitrogen meant for veterinary use and other items related to the Animal Husbandry should be permitted.

"Despite the order, our vehicles are stopped and drivers are harassed," alleged Muddukrishna.

Mangaluru Jun 18: Dakshina Kannada on Thursday, June 18, reported 23 fresh covid-19 cases, taking the total number of the cases detected in the district to 401.  

Among the 23 corona-positive patients, there are 21 males and two females. 

21 are Saudi returnees, while the other two have contracted infection from P-6618.

No cases were reported in Udupi district on Thursday.

The total number of cases in Udupi is 1,039, with only 92 cases being currently active. As many as 946 patients including 38 on Thursday who recovered have been discharged from hospital.

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.