Suratkal police seize 18 cattle, arrest 2 after intercepting goods van

Kalaburagi, Mar 11: A suspected coronavirus patient who had returned to Kalaburagi from Saudi Arabia on February 29 passed away today in hospital.

It is said he was admitted to the hospital on March 5 after he showed flu symptoms. But, the family members of the patient had shifted him to Hyderabad from GIMS on Tuesday against the advice of the doctors.

However, the district administration and District Health Officer (DHO) M A Jabbar are waiting for the final report of throat swab of the patient sent for lab test.

The DHO has directed Taluk Health Officer Sharanabasappa Kyatanal to supervise until the final rites of the suspect person were performed.

Kalaburagi Deputy Commissioner B Sharat said the patient died on Tuesday night on his way back to Kalaburagi after the doctor stated that chances of his survival was bleak. "It is still a suspected coronavirus case. We are waiting for the report," he said.

Sharat said he developed severe respiratory problem coupled with cough, cold and fever. "As he was 76-year-old, he failed to respond to the treatment. It is yet to be confirmed if the cause of death was coronavirus," he said.

Bengaluru, Apr 18: The Karnataka government has managed to get the contact details of nine out of 10 foreign nationals who had visited Jubilant Life Sciences, a pharmaceutical company in Mysuru district's Nanjangud which has been declared a coronavirus hotspot, State minister S Suresh Kumar said on Saturday.

As many as 66 people have tested positive for COVID-19 in Nanjangud.

While investigating the source of virus in what is now known as 'Nanjangud cluster', the Mysuru administration could get information that 10 foreign nationals had visited this town, Kumar told reporters.

Soon the External Affairs Ministry's help was sought which managed to track nine of them, Kumar said, adding that the MEA contacted its embassies in China, Germany, Japan and the USA to track these persons.

"Out of 10, they could contact nine and got details. All of them have said that they were all healthy and they did not have any symptoms.

Hence, they did not feel the need to undergo COVID-19 tests," the minister said.

He opined that many people do not show the symptoms but they could be carriers of the virus.

Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths on April 18

"It all depends on the person's immunity," Kumar explained.

A foreign national from Germany who had visited Nanjangud could not be reached as her contact details were not available.

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.