Tension grips Chikkamagaluru ahead of Datta Jayanti

Apr 21: An 80-year-old COVID-19 patient has died in Karnataka's Kalaburagi district, taking the death toll in the state to 17, Medical Education Minister K Sudhakar said on Tuesday.

The elderly person was suffering from Parkinson's disease for the last three years and died at a hospital on Monday, the minister said in a tweet.

"The person had developed fever on Sunday and was admitted to the hospital. The patient passed away yesterday at 9 am. Last night at 9 pm the death report came, which confirmed that the person was COVID-19 positive," Sudhakar tweeted.

The total number of COVID-19 infections in the state has crossed the 400-mark, according to last evening's bulletin by the Karnataka health department.

Mangaluru, Apr 23: Playing the role of a good samaritan, the owner of a commercial complex and houses has waived off a month’s rent at Panemangalore in Bantwal.

B H Complex owner Mohammed Hassan has waived the rent of 21 shops and 12 houses in the complex. Due to Lockdown, people are without jobs and are struggling to eke out a living and Mr Hassan's good gesture helps them.

Hailing from Barimaru, Mr Hassan, who was working in foreign country, has come down and settled here. He had constructed houses and commercial complex and was living on the rent he was receiving.

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.