S.B.DESHMUKH, N.V.DABHOLKAR
Magar Pansingh Pimple – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
2. Factual matrix essential for the purpose, can be stated as follows :-
By considering proposal sponsored by the Crime Branch, Aurangabad, the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, (henceforth referred to as "respondent No.2"), passed an order on 24-2-2005 in three parts as at Exhibits A and B to the petition. Observing that, it is necessary with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, respondent No.2 has directed detention of the Petitioner. There is no dispute that, respondent No.2 is delegated and empowered to exercise powers under section 3(1) of the MPDA Act. A report as required under section 3(3) of the said Act, was submitted to the State,
Hemalata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Hasan Khan Ibne Haider Khan Vs. R.H. Mendonca
Pradip Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi
Priyanka Fulore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Borjahan Gorey Vs. State of W.B.
Smt. Hemalata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.