<p>Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar on Thursday filed an application opposing Delhi L-G V K Saxena's request for keeping the criminal trial against him in abeyance on the ground of occupying his current post. </p>.<p>Patkar has argued that Saxena's request for immunity for occupying L-G office "is completely misconceived and has been filed merely to further delay proceedings".</p>.<p>Patkar claimed that the latter's post is not equivalent to a state governor, a post which has immunity from such cases. She said "the post of Delhi L-G is not of a governor in terms of Article 153 of the Constitution but merely an "administrator" of Union Territory who is appointed by the President to act on his behalf (under article 239)."</p>.<p>In the reply filed through advocate Govind Parmar, Medha said Saxena's ground for immunity is based "on the grossly misconceived and patently wrong notion that the status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi."</p>.<p>Saxena is facing trial for allegedly assaulting Medha at Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad during a peace meeting in the aftermath of post-Godhra riots in 2002. BJP MLAs Amit P Shah and Amit D Thaker, and Congress leader Rohit N Patel are co-accused in the case. They are facing charges of unlawful assembly, assault, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, among others.</p>.<p>Saxena in his application submitted earlier this month told the court that "criminal proceedings cannot continue till the applicant herein continues to occupy the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, in terms of article 361 of the Constitution of India."</p>.<p>Saxena prayed that in view of the constitutional provision, the proceedings against him "deserve to remain in isolation or abeyance" till he continues to occupy the office of the L.G "in the interest of Justice." The matter will be heard on 15th March. </p>
<p>Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar on Thursday filed an application opposing Delhi L-G V K Saxena's request for keeping the criminal trial against him in abeyance on the ground of occupying his current post. </p>.<p>Patkar has argued that Saxena's request for immunity for occupying L-G office "is completely misconceived and has been filed merely to further delay proceedings".</p>.<p>Patkar claimed that the latter's post is not equivalent to a state governor, a post which has immunity from such cases. She said "the post of Delhi L-G is not of a governor in terms of Article 153 of the Constitution but merely an "administrator" of Union Territory who is appointed by the President to act on his behalf (under article 239)."</p>.<p>In the reply filed through advocate Govind Parmar, Medha said Saxena's ground for immunity is based "on the grossly misconceived and patently wrong notion that the status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi."</p>.<p>Saxena is facing trial for allegedly assaulting Medha at Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad during a peace meeting in the aftermath of post-Godhra riots in 2002. BJP MLAs Amit P Shah and Amit D Thaker, and Congress leader Rohit N Patel are co-accused in the case. They are facing charges of unlawful assembly, assault, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, among others.</p>.<p>Saxena in his application submitted earlier this month told the court that "criminal proceedings cannot continue till the applicant herein continues to occupy the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, in terms of article 361 of the Constitution of India."</p>.<p>Saxena prayed that in view of the constitutional provision, the proceedings against him "deserve to remain in isolation or abeyance" till he continues to occupy the office of the L.G "in the interest of Justice." The matter will be heard on 15th March. </p>