BJP will be responsible for any untoward incident during Tipu Jayanti: Karnataka govt

Mangaluru, Jun 11: City police on Thursday filed a 700-page chargesheet in connection with the arrest of Aditya Rao, 36, accused of planting an IED at Mangaluru International Airport on January 20.

The chargesheet said the bag placed near MIA entrance had a real bomb, as per the FSL report. The IED in the tin box was made of sulphur, ammonium nitrate, potassium chlorate and charcoal.

Rao, an engineer, who learnt bomb-making through online videos, had also placed a timer along with it and sharp objects such as nails and metals. However, he had not fixed wires to trigger a blast. “His intention was not to cause a blast but only to create a scare,” said sources.

The bomb was made in less than two weeks. However, it had taken Rao several days to procure raw materials. Police had completed the chargesheet process in April.

Mysuru, Jan 28: The Second Additional District and Sessions Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to B Nalini, who displayed the ‘Free Kashmir’ placard during a protest, and also to Maridevaiah, the organiser of the protest.

Nalini and Maridevaiah had applied for bail as Jayalakshmipuram police had booked them under sedition charges. Nalini had displayed the placard during a protest at Manasagangotri, the University of Mysore campus, recently. The court, which took up the case on January 24, had kept the order pending.

The court directed the accused to submit their passport to the court and a bond for a sum of Rs 50,000. The court also directed them to be present before the police, whenever needed.

Meanwhile, the Mysuru Bar Association has decided to take measures against the association members who are in favour of Nalini. Seventy-five members, seeking to represent Nalini, have withdrawn their support, the association secretary B Shivanna said. The association has suspended advocates Manjula Manasa and P P Baburaj.

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.