Rains lash parts of Karnataka, bring smiles and tears

Mangaluru/Mysuru, May 19: Though the Karnataka government permitted the private buses, operators in Dakshina Kannada district have decided not to operate buses until May end. In Mysuru district too the private buses remained off the roads.

Dakshina Kannada Bus Owners’ Association President Dilraj Alva said “Technically, private bus operators are not able to operate services as all of us have surrendered our permits. If we start services we will have to pay the tax for entire month. Hence, we have decided to resume bus services from June 1.”

The private buses had suspended their services since March 24.

In addition, bus owners also have two more demands which the state government needs to consider on priority, he said.

“We have requested the government to exempt private buses from paying tax for the next six months. We were not plying buses during lockdown and it will be tough for us in the next three months to operate as per new conditions.”

“The government has allowed only 30 persons in each bus to maintain social distancing. In addition, we have been urging the state government for bus fare revision since 2013. The government has revised the bus fares of KSRTC twice after that,” Alva said adding that bus owners will be meeting Mangaluru RTO on Tuesday.

Bengaluru, Jun 8: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday fielded Eranna Kadadi and Ashok Gasti as it's candidates for the June 19 Rajya Sabha elections from Karnataka, ignoring the recommendations of the state BJP unit.

The state unit had recommended the names of Prabhakar Kore, Ramesh Katti and Prakash Shetty.

The names of the two candidates were announced in a party statement in Delhi.

The election is scheduled on June 19 to fill four Rajya Sabha seats from Karnataka, represented by Rajeev Gowda and BK Hariprasad of Congress, Prabhakar Kore of BJP and D Kupendra Reddy of JD(S) that will fall vacant on June 25, with their retirement.

June 9 is the last date for filing nominations. Party sources said both Kadadi and Gasti come from an RSS background.

Kadadi hails from Belagavi, while Gasti is a resident of Raichur.

The 54-year-old Eranna Kadadi started his active political career in 1989 and unsuccessfully contested the assembly election from Arambhavi constituency in 1994 on a BJP ticket.

He had also served as the Belagavi district Panchayat president in 2010.

Ashok Gasti is a lawyer by profession and former general secretary of the BJP's OBC Cell.

He is the former chairperson of the Backward Class Development Corporation.

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.