Mangaluru: Move to new office in Padil within a month, ministers tell Dakshina Kannada DC
Mangaluru: District In-charge Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao and Revenue Minister directed Deputy Commissioner MP Mullai Muhilan on Sunday to shift to the new office complex of the DC within a month’s time.
The ministers, who were in the city on Sunday for the Republic Day celebrations, visited the new office complex and inspected the construction. They were appreciative of the spacious room and conference hall provided for the offices of the District In-charge Minister, the MP and the new office provided to Speaker and Mangaluru MLA UT Khader.
The minister, however, stressed that it was important that all the officers, starting with the DC, utilize the new facility and shift the offices of their respective departments to the building at Padil.
As DC Muhilan said more funds would be needed to allocate the remaining space for offices of the Enforcement Directorate and other Central government agencies, the Revenue Minister assured that the funds would be provided to meet the requirements of the office complex.
Dinesh Gundu Rao said on the occasion that a master plan was being devised to utilize the heritage building and the old office building of the DC at Hampankatta. The district officers also planned to develop the complex into a museum and cultural centre for people to visit, he added.
MLCs Manjunath Bhandary and Ivan D’Souza, Mangaluru City Corporation Commissioner Ravichandra Nayak and other officers and leaders were present on the occasion.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Opposition plans to move fresh notice seeking removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
New Delhi (PTI): Undeterred by the rejection of their earlier notices, opposition parties are planning a fresh move to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, sources said on Saturday.
According to highly placed sources, leaders from several opposition parties are in talks, and at least five senior MPs from different parties -- including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK -- are working on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings.
It has, however, not yet been decided which House the notice would be moved in, or whether it would be introduced in both Houses as was done last time, the source added.
Buoyed by the defeat of The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha on Friday, opposition leaders are aiming to secure more MPs' signatures on the notice and are looking at garnering at least 200, the source said.
"We want to make a statement. We first need to prove that the number last time was underestimated," the source added.
In its earlier notices, the opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a "failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity" and of acting under the "thumb of the executive".
The notices levelled sweeping charges against the CEC, alleging “proved misbehaviour” on grounds including a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning -- such as the alleged “graded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders -- obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and erosion of transparency through refusal to share data and materials.
They further accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement via Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and elsewhere, defying or delaying compliance with Supreme Court directions, and acting in alignment with the political executive, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission.
However, in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices, holding that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for removal.
They reasoned that appointment-related issues or prior government service do not constitute misconduct; differences in public statements or administrative decisions lack evidence of wilful abuse of authority; and actions like data-sharing or electoral roll revisions fall within the commission’s constitutional mandate and are subject to judicial review.
The responses also stressed that many issues cited were either speculative, politically interpretative, or sub judice, and that removal proceedings cannot be based on disagreement or perceived political consequences but require clear, specific, and provable misconduct, which, they concluded, was absent in this case.
