‘Rapes gone up by 63.79% during Modi rule’: Kushboo, Chaturvedi slam BJP for protecting criminals

Bengaluru, Jul 10: The Karnataka cabinet gave its approval for "The Karnataka Contingency Fund (Amendment) Bill, 2020" to enhance the contingency fund limit to Rs 500 crore in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This will be an ordinance making one time enhancement in the limit as the government needs money to make payments immediately, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister JC Madhuswamy told reporters after a cabinet meeting.

Under the contingency fund, the government had room to spend up to Rs 80 crore without budget provision.

"...but this time due to COVID-19 as we had to give money to some sections that were in distress like barbers, flower and vegetable growers, taxi drivers, among others, we have decided to increase the limit to Rs 500 crore," Mr Madhuswamy said.

"As assembly was not in session and as we had to make payments to those in distress immediately, this decision has been taken," he added.

The cabinet today ratified the administrative approval given to carry out civil and electrical works to install medical gas pipeline with high flow oxygen system at district hospitals, taluk and community health centres coming under Health and Family welfare department in view of COVID-19.

The minister said about Rs 207 crore is being approved for this purpose.

It also ratified procurement of medical equipment and furniture for public healthcare institutions of the health and family welfare department worth Rs 81.99 crore.

According to the minister, the cabinet has decided to bring in an amendment to section 9 of the Lokayukta act, which mandates that the preliminary inquiry contemplated by Lokayukta or Upalokayuta should be completed in 90 days and charge sheeting should be completed within six months.

Noting that at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) cess was being collected, he said as the government had brought in an amendment to the APMC act, there was demand to reduce the market cess. "So we have reduced it from 1.5 per cent to one per cent."

Approval has also been given by the cabinet to bring Karnataka Vidyuth Kharkane (KAVIKA) and Mysore Electrical Industries (MEI), which are presently under the control of Commerce and Industries department, under administrative control of the energy department.

Other decisions taken by the cabibinet include deployment and implementation of "e-procurement 2.0" project on PPP at a cost of Rs 184.37 crore and ratification of the action taken to issue orders on March 24 to release interest free loan of Rs 2,500 crore to ESCOMs for payment of outstanding power purchase dues to generating companies.

The cabinet also gave administrative approval for setting up of an Indian Institute of Information technology at Raichur.

"Under this, we are committed to provide Rs 44.8 crore in four years for infrastructure," the minister added.

Bengaluru, Feb 23: The sleuths of Custom Department have seized ephedrine worth Rs 5 Crore in courier terminal of Air Cargo complex in Kempegowda International Airport (KIA), the department said on Sunday.

Customs Joint Commissioner M J Chethan, in a statement, said that Central Intelligence Unit, Air Cargo Complex, scanned the package while verifying export consignments and found concealment of some powder. 5.04 kg of Ephedrine worth Rs 5 crore was packed in polythene pouches and concealed between cardboard layers of wedding invitation cards.

Detailed examination of the Wedding cards revealed banned drugs hidden between 43 wedding invitation cards in the package that also contained a few clothes.

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.