Transit One Mall – undoubtedly a masterpiece'

Bengaluru, May 15 Reformed underworld don N Muthappa Rai died battling cancer at a private hospital here on Friday, hospital sources said.

Rai, 68, was suffering from brain cancer for the past one year and was admitted at Manipal Hospital on Old Airport Road, where he died at 2.30 am, the sources said. Rai is survived by two sons.

Born into a Tulu-speaking Bunt family in Dakshina Kannada''s Puttur town, Rai entered the crime world at a very young age.

Karnataka police issued arrest warrants against Rai in eight cases, including murder and conspiracy.

In 2002, Rai was deported to India from the United Arab Emirates. On arrival, he was questioned by various investigation agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Intelligence Bureau (IB), and by the Karnataka police. He was later acquitted due to the lack of evidences.

In his reformed years, Rai founded charitable organisation ''Jaya Karnataka''.

Rai has appeared in Tulu film ''Kanchilda Baale'' in 2011 and Kannada film ''Katari Veera Surasundarangi'' in 2012.

Bollywood director Ram Gopal Varma wanted to make a movie based on Rai''s life. The film roped in actor Vivek Oberoi for the lead role and was shot in Bengaluru, Mangaluru, Mumbai, Dubai and London. However, it has not been released due to production delays.

Rai was enthusiastic about the film and even celebrated his birthday with Varma and Oberoi.

After his cancer diagnosis, Rai withdrew from public life and resigned from Jaya Karnataka.

His last rites are likely to be performed at Bidadi on Friday, family sources said.

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.