‘Independent’ Jignesh Mevani gives a blow to BJP in Gujarat; wins from Vadgam

Bengaluru, Feb 27: Chief minister BS Yediyurappa has again kindled hope for several ministerial aspirants by suggesting he will expand his council of ministers in April. A dozen senior BJP legislators are aspiring for ministerial berths, but there are only six vacancies in Yediyurappa’s cabinet.

However, Yediyurappa suggested on Tuesday he will fill only three spots, one of which would go to Hukkeri legislator Umesh Katti. With this, lobbying has intensified for the two remaining berths as the expansion exercise is expected soon after the budget session that ends on March 29.

The aspirants include Murugesh Nirani, S Angara, Appachhu Ranjan, SA Ramdas, Aravind Limbavali, Narasimha Nayak and GH Thippareddy besides others.

Yediyurappa, it is being said, is keen on inducting Katti and Limbavali since they are close to him. He will leave the decision on choosing legislators for the remaining two berths to the party’s central leadership.

On more than one occasion in the past, Yediyurappa has publicly stated that his wish is to induct Katti, a former minister, into the cabinet. In fact, the CM had wanted to induct Katti in the previous expansion that took place last month, but dropped the idea at the last minute due to pressure from party bosses.

The CM is also under pressure to induct Athani legislator Mahesh Kumatalli, who was among 17 Congress-JD(S) MLAs who resigned to help the saffron party form the government. Several BJP MLAs and Lingayat seers have been piling pressure on Yediyurappa to make Kumatalli a minister as promised.

Kumatalli was denied a cabinet berth only to accommodate Katti. Both are Lingayats and from Belagavi district. As the Lingayat community already has a lion’s share in cabinet berths, the CM cannot afford to induct both.

Nirani, who has been leaving no stone unturned to secure a spot, reiterated his wish to become minister, but insisted he will not lobby for the post.

Yediyurappa has been upset with Nirani for lobbying for a berth through Panchamasali Mutt seer Vachananand Swami. The former minister was also part of the team of alleged disgruntled MLAs which met Jagadish Shettar at his residence to put pressure on the CM for cabinet berths.

However, while expressing confidence of being made minister when Yediyurappa’s expands his cabinet next, Nirani said, “Yediyurappa is not upset with me. My relationship with him is that of father and son. He knows me and what I am.”

Mangaluru, Jan 26: Minister for Muzrai, Inland Water Transport, Port and Fisheries Kota Srinivas Poojary in his Republic Day address praised the Dakshina Kannada district and Mangaluru city units of Karnataka police.

Poojary, also district in-charge minister, was speaking after unfurling the National flag as a part of 71st Republic Day celebrations held at Nehru Maidan in the city on Sunday.

He said that the police department had been successful in tackling the challenges posed by anti-social elements to the law and order situation from time to time.

He also lauded the police department for effectively handling the recent bomb threat incident at Mangalore International Airport.

He said, the state government is committed to protect the welfare of the oppressed and backward classes, minority, women, farmers, differently abled and the elderly.

“People from all these sections are guaranteed government benefits in one way or the other,’’ the minister said and called upon the people to strive towards social harmony and to help the departments concerned in keeping anti-social elements away.

The state government will release its share of Rs 4,000 to the farmers under Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Yojana, to which Central government has credited Rs 6,000 per eligible farmer. As many as 1,33,247 farmers are benefited by the scheme in the district, the minister said.

Stating that the coastal region of Karnataka has been placed in the ninth position in the country in fisheries, Poojary said that the coastal line of Karnataka, comprising backwaters and inland water, houses immense resource for fishes.

“Thrust will be laid on boat tourism and development of ports in the coastal districts,’’ he said.

The minister, meanwhile, said that the state government had implemented various programmes for the development of fishermen community.

“Loans to the tune of Rs 60.54 crore availed by 23,000 women belonging to fishing community will be waived. Diesel subsidies amounting to Rs 28.09 crore has been transferred to the bank accounts of owners of 954 mechanized boats during the year 2019-20. As many as 2,500 houses have been sanctioned under Matsyashraya scheme,’’ Poojary said.

Dakshina Kannada district has incurred a loss of Rs 893 crore during the recent floods. Financial assistance has been extended to 1,914 families affected by the floods to buy essential commodities, he said.

Services recognised

The minister thanked the Central government for announcing Padma Vibhushan awards to late Vishwesha Theertha Swami and George Fernandez and Padma Shri award to Harekala Hajabba.

‘’The selfless services to the nation by these stalwarts have been recognised,’’ he said. Educationist Harekala Hajabba was felicitated on the occasion.

Zilla Panchayat President Meenakshi Shanthigodu, MLAs D Vedavyas Kamath, Dr Y Bharat Shetty and U T Khader, MLCs Ivan D’Souza and S L Bhoje Gowda were present. Various troupes conducted march past on the occasion. Schoolchildren took part in cultural programmes.

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.