Telecom fraud: 3 more Mangaluru expats freed from Saudi prison after 13 years

Bengaluru: Karnataka chief minister BS Yediyurappa on Tuesday shuffled the portfolios of six newly inducted ministers after they expressed unhappiness about the departments allocated to them barely 24 hours ago.

Three ministers — BC Patil, Anand Singh and K Gopalaiah — received new responsibilities and as many — Shivaram Hebbar, Srimanth Patil and Byrathi Basavaraj — have been saddled with more.

Sources said the six ministers met the CM late Monday night and said they were not happy with the portfolios handed to them. They reportedly threatened not to assume office until their demands were met, forcing the CM to effect the changes early Tuesday.

BC Patil is now vested with agriculture (he had been given forest), Anand Singh forest, environment and ecology (earlier food and civil supplies) and Gopalaiah food and civil supplies (instead of small-scale industries). BC Patil said, “I’m happy I can now be with farmers.” Shivaram Hebbar has been given the additional responsibility of sugar along with labour allocated to him on Monday.

Allocation of the forest portfolio to Anand Singh has raised eyebrows as the Vijayanagara MLA had been arrested in 2013 and 2015 in cases of illegal mining and illegal transportation of mining ore. Singh owned SB Mineral in Ballari and the Lokayukta had charged him with transporting 17,086 tonnes of iron ore without permission or valid licence. He was acquitted in a Belikeri iron ore export case due to lack of evidence.

Byrathi Basvaraj, who has been given the urban development ministry, will also handle Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation.

Srimanth Patil has received minority welfare department apart from textile.

The exercise of portfolio shuffling is likely to continue with minister K Sudhakar reportedly unhappy with medical education.

In another embarrassment to the CM, Mahesh Kumathalli on Tuesday refused to take over as chairman of the Mysore Sales International Ltd, saying he wants to be a minister. BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal urged Yediyurappa to induct Kumathalli into the cabinet in line with the promise made to him when he joined the BJP before bypolls. “The CM must keep his word,” he said.

Bengaluru, May 5: The movement of migrant labourers from Karnataka to other states has stopped temporarily, as few North Indian states are yet to give consent.

Revenue Minister R Ashok said that the state government will convince labourers to stay back and ensure free food supply at their camps. "Even if we allow them to travel, they will be quarantined for 14 days as soon as they reach their native states.

The labourers don't know about this and some states have not yet given permission for their return," Revenue Minister R Ashok said.

According to sources in CMO, the decision to convince the workers to stay back came after several major projects - both government and private - were affected by the mass migration of labourers to their native districts and states.

Ashok, along with S Suresh Kumar, Primary and Secondary Education minister and head of the group of ministers focusing on migrant workers, also visited labourers who had gathered demanding that they be allowed to return.

Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa will chair a meeting tomorrow and instruct builders under CREDAI to pay pending wages of labourers, provide food supply and ensure their safety, Ashok said, adding that all construction work by BBMP will also be taken up to help the labourers.

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.