Udupi: Girl child found murdered a day after she was allegedly kidnapped

New Delhi, Jan 27: The government on Monday issued the preliminary information memorandum for 100 per cent stake sale in national carrier Air India. As part of the strategic disinvestment, Air India would also sell 100 per cent stake in low cost airline Air India Express and 50 per cent shareholding in joint venture AISATS, as per the bid document issued on Monday.

Management control of the airline would also be transferred to the successful bidder.

The government has set March 17 as the deadline for submitting the Expression of Interest (EoI).

EY is the transaction adviser for Air India disinvestment process.

Udupi, Jun 20: Movement of heavy vehicles on Agumbe Ghat section was banned till October 15, following heavy rain lashing due to onset of South West Monsoon.

The Agumbe Ghat connects Shivamogga with the Udupi district. There is a possibility of landslides on either side of the Ghat road if movement of heavy vehicles is allowed during the monsoon, said Udupi DC G Jagadeesh in statement issued here on Saturday.

The movement of all heavy vehicles above 12 tonnes has been banned on the road. Till end of monsoon all the heavy vehicles have to move via Udupi-Brahmavar-Barkur-Shankaranarayana; Siddapura-Hosangady-Hulikal Ghat-Hosanagara-Theerthahalli; Udupi-Karkala-Bajagoli-S K Border-Kerekatte-Sringeri- Shivamogga.

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.