Ahmedabad (Gujarat) [India], May 24 (ANI): The Gujarat High Court has stayed the trial towards Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena in an alleged assault case filed by activist Medha Patkar, by considering the constitutional safety offered to him until he holds the LG workplace.
The matter pertains to the grievance lodged by activist Medha Patkar in 2002 towards VK Saxena and three others accusing them of allegedly assaulting her.
The Gujarat HC on Tuesday restrained a decrease Court in Ahmedabad from going forward with the trial towards Delhi LG by considering his competition that he was offered safety beneath the Constitution until he occupies the workplace of the LG.
The HC stated that the contentions raised by Saxena’s counsel “require consideration” and in addition issued notices to Patkar.
It additionally famous the submission of Saxena’s counsel that the delay within the trial within the 2002 case was as a result of adjournment functions moved by complainant Medha Patkar on 94 events.
In the petition, Saxena contented that Patkar “falsely implicated” him as he had uncovered her “anti-Gujarat” and “anti-Sardar Sarovar Project” actions beneath the guise of ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan’ within the 12 months 2000.
His counsel submitted that the Delhi LG has been ab intio vigorously defending the “motivated, vexatious and vindictive” prosecution instituted by the complainant, Medha Patkar.
Saxena, who has challenged the May 8, 2023 order of the trial court docket, additionally sought an interim keep on additional proceedings which was granted by the High Court.
“Meanwhile, ad-interim relief (of stay of Trial Court order) in terms of para 11 (B) qua the present petitioner (VK Saxena) Direct service is permitted,” stated Justice M Okay Thakker within the interim order handed on May 23.
The HC stated the contentions raised by Saxena’s counsel “requires consideration” and issued notices to Patkar and the state returnable on June 19.
Senior advocate Jal S Unwalla and advocate Ajay Kumar Choksi, showing for the LG, submitted that he has been protected by Article 361 (2) (3) of the Constitution and the trial court docket has arrived at apparently inaccurate findings that granting safety to him and recording statements of witnesses after he demits workplace of LG would delay the trial.
Taking on document the arguments of Saxena’s counsel, the HC said “In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that the matter requires consideration and notice is required to be issued. Hence, Notice returnable on June 19, 2023.”Saxena’s advocates relied upon the chart positioned within the petition to buttress that delay within the trial of the case was as a result of non-cooperation of Patkar who from June 20, 2005, to February 01, 2023, moved functions for adjournments greater than 94 occasions.
“The said record has been grossly overlooked by the Trial Court while arriving to the irrational and illogical conclusions with respect to the delay”, Saxena’s counsel had argued.
The counsel submitted, “The delay that occurred is at the instance of the complainant (Medha Patkar). The credit of delay cannot be bestowed upon the petitioner to deny the protection, which is precisely available under the Constitution. To secure the presence of Medha Patkar for recording her evidence is like an old shoe to mull over”.
The petition filed by Saxena searching for to put aside the Trial Court order of May 08, 2023, blamed Patkar for the delay within the trial.
“After issuance of summons, in the year 2005, she did not appear and sought for more than 46 adjournments for recording her evidence and ignored and avoided the process of law and appeared before the trial court for the first time in 2012, seven years after the issuance of summons,” the plea said.
The petition identified that after 20 adjournments, Patkar appeared and concluded her examination in chief and for an extended interval she remained absent for her cross-examination and took one other 24 adjournments.
The petition narrated the sequence of occasions within the trial of the case.
The petition by Saxena said that the Trial Court must have verified the document on, the “conduct” of Patkar and her participation within the trial. (ANI)