https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189760 The Court held that the detenu's activities, such as attempting to run over police personnel and creating fear among witnesses, were prejudicial to "public order" rather than just "law and order." It concluded that the detention order exceeding three months was valid under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, clarifying that the proviso to Section 3(2) pertains to delegation of powers, not the duration of detention. The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, affirming the validity of the detention order. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:25:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189760 The Court held that the detenu's activities, such as attempting to run over police personnel and creating fear among witnesses, were prejudicial to "public order" rather than just "law and order." It concluded that the detention order exceeding three months was valid under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, clarifying that the proviso to Section 3(2) pertains to delegation of powers, not the duration of detention. The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, affirming the validity of the detention order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189760