Oh My Gau Mata! Modi govt withdraws ban on sale of cattle for slaughter

Mangaluru Jul 11: A member of Adyar gram panchayat, who was attacked by a gang last night breathed his last at a private hospital in the city.

Mohammed Yaqoob, who was a BJP backed member of Adyar GP was attacked near his village by a gang at around 9 pm on Friday.

In spite of sustaining serious injuries, he managed to return home. 

He then hired an auto-rickshaw and went to Highland Hospital along with his son. 

However, he breathed his last there without responding to any treatment.

According to sources, the victim knew one of the assistants.

It is suspected that political or personal rivalry might be the reason for the attack. However the exact motto behind the attack is not yet known. 

A case has been registered in Kankanady Rural police station.

Bengaluru, May 3: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Sunday said that his government has allowed labourers to travel to their hometowns in the state on KSRTC buses free of charge for three days starting on Sunday.

"Labourers have been allowed to travel in KSRTC buses free of charge from the district centres and capital Bengaluru to their hometowns in Karnataka for three days from today," Yediyurappa said.

"The government will bear the cost of travel. The concern is that a large number of labourers should not assemble at any bus stop," he added.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on May 1, issued an order to extend the ongoing lockdown by two more weeks from May 4 and also allowed the movement of migrant workers, tourists, students and other persons stranded at different places, by special trains.

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.