Saudi bizman Bhaskar Shetty murdered by wife, son in Udupi with priest's help

Bengaluru, Apr 6: Karnataka State Board for Auqaf on Monday suspended mass prayers and visit to the Qabrasthans (graveyards) and dargahs on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat on April 9 due to the coronavirus pandemic.

"It is hereby directed to all not to hold congregational prayer in the Masjid and the management of the Qabrasthans/Dargahs throughout the State should suspend the visit of public on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat on Thursday, April 9," according to a statement here on Monday.

It said, no public shall be allowed to perform religious rituals in the Qabrasthans/Dargahs and all the gates shall be kept closed.

New Delhi, Feb 13: Ashoka Buildcon on Thursday said it has emerged as the lower bidder for a highway project worth Rs 1,035.5 crore in Karnataka.

The project entails four laning of a section of NH-206 in the state.

Ashoka Buildcon had submitted its bid to National Highways Authority of India for the project to be built on hybrid annuity mode under Bharatmala Pariyojana, it said in a BSE filing.

"The company emerged as the lowest bidder at the financial bid opening meeting held on February 13," Ashoka Buildcon said.

The quoted bid project cost for the project is Rs 1,035.50 crore, it added.

The company's stock was trading at Rs 103.05, down 2.78 per cent, on the BSE.

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.