WB govt cancels Kolkata auditorium booking for Bhagwat programme

Wayanad/Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 24: Amid the strict lockdown, a school teacher travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Muthanga in Wayanad -- a distance of about 465 km -- on her way to neighbouring Karnataka en route to Delhi following which cases have been registered against her and an excise official.

The woman, Kamna Sharma, said to be working in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pattom, undertook the journey on April 21 along with her two year-old daughter, police sources told news agency PTI.

An Excise Circle Inspector, Shahjahan, had provided his vehicle to travel allegedly on the instructions of Malappuram excise officer, in whose private vehicle, the woman and the child had reached Wayanad border from Thiruvananthapuram, the sources said.

The two were charged under the Kerala Epidemic Act and various sections of the IPC including sect 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection) and 271 (disobedience to quarantine rule).

Because of the lockdown even inter-district travel is not allowed by police and district administration, unless there is an extremely genuine reason.

A senior police official in Thiruvananthapuram said he does not remember issuing any such pass.

The woman may have "misused" government machinery as private vehicles would have been stopped somewhere during the long journey, he said.

She came to Kalpetta in Wayanad allegedly in an official car of the excise department.

Wayanad District police chief R Elango said that an FIR has been filed based on preliminary information and investigations have begun.

"We will check if she has followed procedures in obtaining a pass and if she made any false claim to get the pass."

As per preliminary information the woman came in an excise official's car from Thamarassery (Kozhikode) to Muthunga(Wayanad), he said. Her mode of transport before that--from Thiruvananthapuram to Wayanad--will also be investigated, he said, adding they have no information if she has reached Delhi.

"We will track down her movement," he said Meanwhile, theWayanad district administration has intensified the lockdown protocol from Thursday to prevent people's movement within and from outside the district/state.

Interception at all the check posts on district an state borders of the district, bordering Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, will also be intensified. No one would be allowed to travel frequently to and fro the district under the pretext of official duty.

Wayanad collector Adhila Abdulla said officials from outside the district will no longer be allowed to commute daily.

"Elderly people above the age of 65 should confine to their homes unless it is extremely urgent or unavoidable. Cases will be registered against family members who allow elderly people to go out for buying medicines and other essentials," she said.

Senior citizens, who live alone, can call either the Fire (101) or Police (100) departments for any help and to get things they need, the collector said.

Whatever relaxations were in place have also been withdrawn with effect from Thursday, she added.

Wayanad and Thiruvananthapuram come under the "Orange B" zone where there are some relaxations.

However, Thiruvananthapuram city limits falls under the hotspot area.

Police said a case was also registered against a doctor and her husband who entered Kerala from Tamil Nadu border.

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.