Udupi: Women take to the street warning govt against allowing more liquor shops

Mangaluru, Jun 15: A father and his four-year-old son were killed when their motorcycle was hit by a lorry from behind at Bakampady junction on the outskirts of the city.

The Police said the deceased has been identified as Abdul Bhasheer, a resident of Krishnapura and his son Shayan. 

On Sunday evening, Bahseer was going from Mangaluru to Krishnapura by the motorcycle along with wife and son when a speeding lorry "dashed into the motorcycle from behind and knocked them down''.

The four-year-old son died on the spot while Basher and his wife were rushed to the hospital. However, the husband succumbed to injuries at the hospital on Monday. Local police registered a case in this connection.

Mangaluru, Jan 22: Eminent industrialist Dr Mohammed Yusuf has been elected the chairperson of the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf. 

10 members of the Board cast their votes in the election held to the top post today at its office in the city. While Dr Yusuf, who was backed by the Congress, secured six votes, K N M Shafi Sa’adi, who was backed by the BJP, secured only 4 votes.

Addressing reporters, Dr Yusuf said that there was 1.32 lakh acres of Wakf land at the time of Independence. A large number of the properties were lost under various laws, including the Inam Land Abolition Act.

Flanked by Congress MLA Tanveer Sait and Minorities Welfare Dept secretary A B Ibrahim, Dr Yusuf vowed to strive hard to make the Board an example for the entire country. 

74-year-old Dr Yusuf had held the post more than once in the past. A veterinarian, Dr Yusuf had quit the government job and set up business in Bengaluru and Dubai decades ago and has earned considerable success.

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.