PM Modi's words are worth nothing, hits out Siddaramaiah

Madikeri, May 30: Environmentalists have opposed the Karnataka Forest Department and the Public Works Department’s move to erect concrete pillars and marking of trees to construct a proposed road from Patti to Todikana within the Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary near Talacauvery in Kodagu District.

They have urged for immediate stopping of road works in a protected area.

In a letter to Conservator of Forests, Mysuru Circle, T Heeralal and DCF (Territorial and In-charge Wildlife) S Prabhakaran, the Trustees of Wildlife First K M Chinnappa and A A Poovaiah have termed the road works illegal and violates Supreme Court order on National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.

The letter’s copy has also been sent to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), and Kodagu Deputy Commissioner urging them to halt the progress of the road works. “Patti and Todikana are at the core of the Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and such unilateral activities without complete approval on completion of the statutorily mandated procedure (both under Forest Conservation Act and Wild Life Protection Act),” the letter stated.

The letter added that they would be forced to move the Courts and the officers who have given approval to the project would face legal consequences.

Bengaluru, Feb 27: The Centre has adopted Prime Minister Narendra Modi's mantra of "Make in India', for India and the world" to build strong defence and security infrastructure in the country, said Defence Minister Rajnath Singh after inaugurating the new Light Combat Helicopter Production Hangar at Helicopter Division in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Complex here on Thursday.

According to an official statement, the Defence Minister said in the last five years, India has made significant progress towards manufacturing military equipment indigenously under the 'Make in India' initiative.

Stressing that the defence industry plays a major role in the economic development of the country, Singh lauded the significant contribution of organisations like HAL.

Highlighting the Rs 35,000 crore exports target set for the coming years, he expressed confidence that HAL, through its various platforms, will contribute significantly to achieve this milestone.

According to the statement, Rajnath Singh commended HAL for being the backbone of the Indian Air Force and meeting the requirements of the Armed Forces.

"The HAL has excelled both in operations and finance in the last five years. It has achieved operational clearance on seven platforms, including Light Combat Aircraft and Light Combat Helicopter, and overhauled platforms like Hawk and SU 30 MKI," he said.

He also appreciated that HAL had a turnover of Rs 19,705 crore till March 2019 and it gave shareholders a healthy dividend of 198 per cent.

HAL also apprised the Defence Minister on the progress of the new design and development programme of indigenous Indian Multi-Role Helicopter (IMRH), the statement informed.

The full-scale mock-up was showcased to Rajnath Singh. The IMRH is proposed as a replacement to the existing medium-lift helicopters such as Mi17's, Kamovs and Seakings which will phase out in the next eight to ten years.

LCH is a 5.5-tonne class combat helicopter designed and developed by HAL. It is powered by two Shakti engines and inherits many technical features of the Advanced Light Helicopter. LCH has the distinction of being the first attack helicopter to land in Forward Bases at Siachen, 4,700 mts above sea level with 500kg load.

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.