Fisheries among the priority sectors of State Government'

January 5, 2012

Mangalore, January 5: Chief Minister D V Sadananda Gowda on Wednesday laid the foundation stones for constructing two fish markets at Kinnigoli and Bantwal on the outskirts of city.

Speaking on the occasion he said fisheries were among the priority sectors of the State Government. He also promised that the Government will construct 10 modern fish markets for women in three coastal districtal Karnataka.

All fish markets would be built with financial grants from the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB), Hyderabad, and the State Government, he said adding that the former would share 90 per cent of the cost of the market and the balance would be borne by the latter.

The market at Kinnigoli would be built at an estimated cost of Rs. 76.66 lakh and in Bantwal at an estimated cost of Rs. 52 lakh.

The other fish markets would come up at Padubidri, Katpady, Udupi, Uppunda, Baindoor, Karwar, Shirali, and Ankola.

Meanwhile, a press note released on the occasion by Karnataka Coastal Development Authority under whose auspices the 10 markets would be built, said that the markets would have toilets and bathrooms for women. In addition, they would have a restroom, a changing room and a dining room. The markets would have stainless steel trays for selling fish. They would be high-tech markets with proper seating arrangements.

The market at Kinnigoli in Mangalore would have 36 fresh-fish selling counters and six dry-fish selling counters. The building at Bantwal would have 24 fresh-fish and four-dry fish selling counters.

Chairman of the authority B. Nagaraj Shetty said that it had been planned to complete the market in 18 months from now.

The press release said that a team of the authority had visited Malwan in Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra to see the modern fish markets and study the facilities provided there. The drawing of 10 fish markets had been prepared by consulting experts.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

HC refuses to quash probe against Mangaluru WhatsApp admin over offensive posts

News Network

February 1,2026

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.

Comments