UAE moots high-speed underwater rail between Fujairah and Mumbai

Bengaluru, Apr 18: Virtually defending the Gowda family for conducting a marriage reportedly defying lockdown restrictions, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Tuesday said it was performed in a simple manner and well within their limits, "for which they are to be congratulated."

"All the necessary permissions were given and the marriage was performed in a simple manner. There is no need to discuss about it. They had done it well within their limits for which I congratulate them," Yediyurappa said to a query from reporters during the post-COVID-19 briefing.

Scores of people had thronged a farmhouse on Friday to get a glimpse of the wedding of former Prime Minister and JD (S) supremo, H D Deve Gowda's grandson Nikhil Kumaraswamy, ignoring appeals not to visit the venue in view of the ongoing lockdown to check the COVID-19 outbreak. Nikhil, son of former Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy, tied the nuptial knot with Revathi, the grand-niece of former Karnataka housing minister M Krishnappa.

The marriage was solemnised at Kumaraswamy's Kethaganahalli farmhouse at Bidadi in the neighbouring Ramanagara district, a JD(S) stronghold. Kumaraswamy had taken to Twitter after the marriage, thanking his party MLAs, leaders and workers for staying away from the event and blessing his son from their houses. In a series of tweets, he had said social distancing was maintained and all precautionary measures were taken throughout the event.

BJP had hit out at the JD(S) first family for flouting the norms, alleging that at least 150 to 200 vehicles were given permission to attend the event, that too at at time when social workers wanting to serve the badly affected poor people were not being allowed to ply any form of transport JD(S) leader N H Konareddi and MLC T A Sharavanna had denied the charges, saying the union government guidelines had been followed and that social distancing was maintained.

Mangaluru, Jun 13: A bus agent died after the compound wall of his house collapsed on him at Matadagudde, near Gurupura-Kaikamba, on Friday afternoon. This is the first rain-related death reported in Dakshina Kannada.

The victim is Narayana Naika, 52. According to police, heavy rain on Friday afternoon blocked a small water stream adjacent to his compound wall, and the deceased was clearing it. The stone compound wall then suddenly collapsed on him, and he got buried underneath. He sustained grievous head injuries and died on the way to hospital.

Narayana is survived by his wife and two children.

Dakshina Kannada received an average rainfall of 26.1mm in the last 24 hours till 8.30 am on Friday. The highest rainfall was recorded at Puttur and Mangaluru taluks at 31.3mm and 30.3mm, respectively. Bantwal and Sullia taluks received 26.3mm and 24.6mm of rain, respectively.

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.