JUDGMENT : 1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms.Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for declaration that the petitioner i.e. Dipaben Dhaval Bhatt being wife of Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt (hereinafter referred to as “the patient” as and when the context warrants) be appointed as a guardian who is in comatose state. 3. Tersely stated are the facts: 3.1 The petitioner, is the wife of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt. According to the petitioner, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the patient on 20.06.1991 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Rajkot. The petitioner is having two children, daughter Trushti Dhaval Bhatt whose date of birth is 07.06.1998 and son Tej Dhaval Bhatt whose date of birth is 28.01.2000. 3.2 On 17.07.2014, the husband of the petitioner had suffered cardiac arrest and was immediately admitted to Wockhardt Hospital, Rajkot. The heart of the patient had stopped functioning and due to intermittent stoppage of functioning of heart, the blood circulation to the brain had stopped and therefore, the patient had gone into coma and since then, is in coma. Owing to the aforesaid, the patient is not in a position to recognize anybody. The patient is unable to understand anything and not in a position to speak and/or move from the bed and is completely in a vegetative state. 3.3 According to the petitioner, she being a housewife, has the responsibility of maintaining the patient i.e. her husband and is finding it extremely difficult, in absence of any other resource, to maintain the family and providing adequate life support and other medical treatment to the patient who was the sole bread earner. The petitioner has incurred heavy expenses towards the medical treatment and presently also treatment is being extended, and he being in a vegetative state, one person is required to take care of him round the clock. That the petitioner has exhausted all her financial resources and she and her family, are in the state of despair, isolation and abandonment. 3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that presently, the petitioner is staying with the patient at the residence of the elder brother of the patient. That the petitioner has exhausted all her financial resources and she and her family, are in the state of despair, isolation and abandonment. 3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that presently, the petitioner is staying with the patient at the residence of the elder brother of the patient. The patient, is having some movable and immovable properties and some bank deposits. Since the patient is completely in the state of coma, neither the petitioner nor the patient is in a position to deal with the properties, owing to various legal impediments. 3.5 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking declaration that she be appointed as a guardian of the patient i.e. her husband namely Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt, who is in the state of coma and unable to take care of himself. 4. Ms.Avnika Panchal, learned advocate for Mr.Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the patient i.e. husband of the petitioner had suffered a cardiac arrest and owing to which he is in the state of coma. It is submitted that the patient is neither in a position to understand anything, condition to speak nor is able to move and is completely bed ridden. It is also submitted that the patient is completely in a vegetative state and unable to take care of himself. It is submitted that the patient was the sole bread earner and petitioner being the wife of the patient has no other resource and is now finding it difficult to maintain the patient i.e. her husband inasmuch as she is running out of funds. The petitioner since finding it difficult to manage the funds, it is required that she be permitted to deal with the movable and immovable properties of the patient so as to take care of the medical expenses of the patient. 4.1 It is also submitted that this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021, was kind enough to direct the respondent No.2 Collector, Rajkot to constitute a team of experts to verify the physical and mental condition of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt. Apropos the said direction, a team of five doctors was constituted which, after examining the patient, have submitted the report, inter alia, opining that the patient has suffered hypoxic brain injury. Apropos the said direction, a team of five doctors was constituted which, after examining the patient, have submitted the report, inter alia, opining that the patient has suffered hypoxic brain injury. The team, has expressed its final impression to the effect that the patient has suffered ishemic heart disease; cerebrovascular attack - Hypoxic insult to brain; is bed redden and primary activities need to be taken care of by relatives. In the final conclusion, it has been opined that “the patient is not competent to make & execute any decision at present”. 4.2 It is further submitted that so far as the heirship is concerned, the Collector, Rajkot was directed to verify the said aspect by a responsible officer. Accordingly, the office of the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate, Rajkot has submitted a report dated 07.09.2021 wherein, it has been recorded that the legal heirs of the patient Shri Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt are: (i) Dipaben Dhaval Bhatt (wife); (ii) Trushti Dhaval Bhatt (daughter) and (iii) Tej Dhaval Bhatt (son). It is therefore submitted that the legal heirs of the patient have been duly verified and they have also filed their respective affidavits, inter alia, declaring that they have no objection if the petitioner is appointed as guardian of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt. 4.3 It is submitted that so far as the person suffering from comatose state is concerned, there is no legislation enacted so as to take care of the patient and appointment of any relative and/or close friend as a guardian. It is submitted that there are various legislations, namely (i) The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (ii) The Mental Health Act, 1987 (repealed) (iii) The National Trust Act for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 and others which take care of the appointment of the guardian in the respective fields. 4.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rendered in WP (C) No.37278 of 2018. 4.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rendered in WP (C) No.37278 of 2018. It is submitted that it has been held that in absence of any legislation governing appointment of the guardian to the patient who is in comatose state, it would be open for the party to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer seeking declaration of appointment of the guardian. 4.5 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Philomena Leo Lobo v. Union of India, of the High Court of Bombay rendered in WP (L) No.28269 of 2017. It is submitted that the Bombay High Court has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the appointment of petitioner therein as a guardian, permitting to operate/deal with the affairs. Under the circumstances, it is urged that the prayer of the petitioner be acceded to of declaring the petitioner as a guardian of the patient namely Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt. 5. On the other hand, Ms.Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that apropos the order passed by this Court dated 03.09.2021, the office of the Medical Superintendent, P.D.U. Hospital, Rajkot has constituted a team of the experts, which in turn, has examined the patient and submitted the report. The team, has recommended that the patient is not competent to make and execute any decision at present. It is also submitted that necessary affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2, inter alia, stating that pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 03.09.2021, panchnama dated 06.09.2021 has been drawn, recording that the petitioner i.e. Dipaben Dhaval Bhatt and two children i.e. unmarried daughter Trushti Dhaval Bhatt and son Tej Dhaval Bhatt are the only legal heirs of the patient. On the basis of the panchnama, report dated 07.09.2021 has been prepared reiterating and confirming the said aspect about the petitioner and two children being the only legal heirs of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt. It is submitted that the respective verification has been carried out by the team of the doctors and the office of the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate, Rajkot as regards the condition of the patient so also the aspect of heirship. It is submitted that the respective verification has been carried out by the team of the doctors and the office of the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate, Rajkot as regards the condition of the patient so also the aspect of heirship. It is therefore urged that appropriate order be passed. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perceptibly, the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt had suffered cardiac arrest, as a result of which, he was admitted in the hospital and during the treatment he has suffered hypoxic brain injury and since then, he is in the state of coma. The patient, was treated by Dr.Tejas Chaudhary and Dr.Nilesh Makadia and thereafter, was discharged on 16.08.2014. After discharge, the patient required attention round the clock and therefore, the petitioner has put all the efforts to see that requisite treatment is provided to the patient i.e. her husband, while doing so, the petitioner has spent lakhs of rupees towards medical expenses. The petitioner has been managing funds with the aid and assistance of family members and close relatives. It is also not in dispute that the patient was the sole bread earner and on account of the patient going into state of coma and continuous treatment since last almost 7 years, the petitioner is running out of financial resources even to meet the basic needs. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition with a prayer seeking declaration that she be appointed as a guardian of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt – her husband, who is in state of coma. 8. According to the petitioner, the patient is having properties i.e. movables and immovables and some bank deposits, details whereof are produced in the vernacular. In the list of properties, there is a reference of a plot admeasuring 106.87 sq. mts. in the name of the patient and his mother, which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.2000. The patient has 50% share in the property. Apart from the share in the property, the patient also possesses shares and bank accounts details whereof, are indicated in the document at Annexure-”E” (page 18) of the compilation. 9. mts. in the name of the patient and his mother, which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.2000. The patient has 50% share in the property. Apart from the share in the property, the patient also possesses shares and bank accounts details whereof, are indicated in the document at Annexure-”E” (page 18) of the compilation. 9. As is discernible from the record, the petitioner is wife of the patient and has two children, unmarried daughter Trushti Dhaval Bhatt, aged around 23 years and son Tej Dhaval Bhatt, aged around 21 years, who have filed their respective affidavits, inter alia, declaring that they have no objection if the petitioner is declared as a guardian of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt. Relevant paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 06.03.2021 of Ms.Trushti Dhaval Bhatt is reproduced hereinbelow: “6. I say that, under these circumstances, by way of this affidavit, I say on oath that I have no objection if my mother namely ‘Dipaben Dhaval Bhatt’ is declared as a Guardian of my father namely ‘Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt’.” Similarly, paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 06.03.2021 of Tej Dhaval Bhatt reads thus: “6. I say that, under these circumstances, by way of this affidavit, I say on oath that I have no objection if my mother namely ‘Dipaben Dhaval Bhatt’ is declared as a Guardian of my father namely ‘Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt’.” 10. Further, the team of doctors was constituted, which has also given the report, which is placed on the record. The contents whereof read thus: “History: Patient on Dt.17/07/2014 around 05:30 am had history of breathlessness at home & was taken to Wockhardt Hospital, Rajkot. On the way patient had Cardiac Arrest. He reached the hospital where he was given CPR. He was revived & treated as ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE WITH CEREBROVASCULAR ATTACK. Patient meanwhile suffered hypoxic Brain Injury as per documents presented infront of us. He was treated by Dr. Tejas Chaudhary & Dr. Nilesh Makadia. Patient was discharged on Dt.16/08/2014. Condition on discharge was E2VTM4, on RT, foley’s & tracheostomy tube. During hospital stay he was also being treated by Neurologist Dr. Nirav Sanghani. Since then he was under physical & medical rehabilitation under care of Dr. Tejas Chaudhary & Dr. Milap Mashru. Patient underwent PEG tube insertion on Dt.16/09/2014 by Dr. Praful Kamani at Wockhardt Hospital, Rajkot. Trachostomy was done by Dr. Jayesh Dobariya on first admission. During hospital stay he was also being treated by Neurologist Dr. Nirav Sanghani. Since then he was under physical & medical rehabilitation under care of Dr. Tejas Chaudhary & Dr. Milap Mashru. Patient underwent PEG tube insertion on Dt.16/09/2014 by Dr. Praful Kamani at Wockhardt Hospital, Rajkot. Trachostomy was done by Dr. Jayesh Dobariya on first admission. Since then regular PEG tube call is being taken by Dr. Praful Kamani. Now on Dt.:07/09/2021 patient was presented before us for gross clinical evaluation. Now no fresh new complaint. No other significant history. No significant past or present history of Psychiatric illness or major medical illness prior to this event on Dt.:17/07/2014. Final Impression: = ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE = CEREBROVASCULAR ATTACK – Hypoxic insult to brain. = Bed Ridden. = Primary activities needs to be taken care by relatives. Final Decision: Based on current evaluation & assessment, it is recommended that patient is not competent to make & execute any decision at present.” From the final conclusion of the report prepared by the team of the doctors, it is clear that the patient, is not competent to make and execute any decision at present, he being in the state of coma. 11. Adverting to the legal aspect of the matter, pertinently, there are various legislation namely (i) The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, (ii) The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (iii) The Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (repealed), (iv) The Hindu Minority and Guardianship act, 1956, (v) The Mental Health Act, 1987 (repealed), (vi) The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (repealed), (vii) The National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, (viii) The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. The said legislations have been enacted dealing with the appointment of guardians for the respective purposes. So far as the persons in the comatose state is concerned, there is no legislative enactment providing for appointment of a guardian. 12. At this stage, therefore it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan & Others v. State of Kerala (supra). So far as the persons in the comatose state is concerned, there is no legislative enactment providing for appointment of a guardian. 12. At this stage, therefore it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan & Others v. State of Kerala (supra). It has been held that considering the role of the Court, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India springs up, when no remedy is provided under any Statute to persons with “comatose state” and it is something like “parens patriae” jurisdiction. Paragraphs 34 and 35 read thus: “34. Considering the role of this Court, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India springs up, when no remedy is provided under any Statute to persons like patients in 'comatose state'. It is something like 'parens patriae' jurisdiction. A reference to the verdict in Nothman vs. Barnet London Borough Council [1978 (1) WLR 220] (at 228) is also relevant. In such cases, it is often said, Courts have to do what the Parliament would have done. A reference to the verdict in Surjit Singh Karla vs. Union of India and another [ 1991(2) SCC 87 explaining the principle of 'causes omissus' is also brought to the notice of this Court; to the effect that if it is an accidental omission, court can supply/fill up the gap. This Court however does not find it appropriate to "re-write" the provision, as it is within the exclusive domain of the Parliament. This is more so, when the relevant statutes like Mental Health Act, 1987 and PWD Act, 1995 came to be repealed, on introducing the new legislations, such as the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 and The Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in conformity with the mandate of U.N.Convention, 2006. This Court does not say anything whether any amendment is necessary, also in respect of the National Trust Act for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (National Trust Act, 1999) with reference to the U.N.Convention 2006. It is for the Government to consider and take appropriate steps in this regard, as it is never for the Court to encroach into the forbidden field. It is for the Government to consider and take appropriate steps in this regard, as it is never for the Court to encroach into the forbidden field. This Court would only like to make it clear that, in so far as the case of a patient lying in 'comatose state' is not covered by any of the statutes, (as discussed above), for appointment of a Guardian, the petitioners are justified in approaching this court seeking to invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is declared accordingly. 35. Coming to the incidental aspects; since no specific provision is available in any Statutes to deal with the procedure for such appointment of Guardian to a victim lying in 'comatose state', it is necessary to stipulate some 'Guidelines', based on the inputs gathered by this Court from different corners, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and also by the learned Amicus Curiae, till the field is taken over by proper legislation in this regard. This Court finds it appropriate to fix the following norms/guidelines as a temporary measure: (i) petitioner/s seeking for appointment of Guardian to a person lying in comatose state shall disclose the particulars of the property, both movable and immovable, owned and possessed by the patient lying in comatose state. (ii) The condition of the person lying in comatose state shall be got ascertained by causing him to be examined by a duly constituted Medical Board, of whom one shall definitely be a qualified Neurologist. (iii) A simultaneous visit of the person lying in comatose state, at his residence, shall be caused to be made through the Revenue authorities, not below the rank of a Tahsildar and a report shall be procured as to all the relevant facts and figures, including the particulars of the close relatives, their financial conditions and such other aspects. (iv) The person seeking appointment as Guardian of a person lying in comatose state shall be a close relative (spouse or children) and all the persons to be classified as legal heirs in the due course shall be in the party array. In the absence of the suitable close relative, a public official such as 'Social Welfare officer' can be sought to be appointed as a Guardian to the person lying in 'comatose state'. In the absence of the suitable close relative, a public official such as 'Social Welfare officer' can be sought to be appointed as a Guardian to the person lying in 'comatose state'. (v) The person applying for appointment as Guardian shall be one who is legally competent to be appointed as a Guardian (vi) The appointment of a Guardian as above shall only be in respect of the specific properties and bank accounts/such other properties of the person lying in comatose state; to be indicated in the order appointing the Guardian and the Guardian so appointed shall act always in the best interest of the person lying in 'comatose state'. (vii) The person appointed as Guardian shall file periodical reports in every six months before the Registrar General of this Court, which shall contain the particulars of all transactions taken by the Guardian in respect of the person and property of the patient in comatose state; besides showing the utilization of the funds received and spent by him/her. (viii) The Registrar General shall cause to maintain a separate Register with regard to appointment of Guardian to persons lying in 'comatose state' and adequate provision to keep the Reports filed by the Guardian appointed by this Court. (ix) It is open for this Court to appoint a person as Guardian to the person lying in comatose state, either temporarily or for a specified period or permanently, as found to be appropriate. (x) If there is any misuse of power or misappropriation of funds or non-extension of requisite care and protection or support with regard to the treatment and other requirements of the person lying in comatose state, it is open to bring up the matter for further consideration of this Court to re-open and revoke the power, to take appropriate action against the person concerned, who was appointed as the Guardian and also to appoint another person/public authority/Social Welfare Officer (whose official status is equal to the post of District Probation Officer) as the Guardian. (xi) It shall be for the Guardian appointed by the Court to meet the obligations/duties similar to those as described under Section 15 of the National Trust Act and to maintain and submit the accounts similar to those contained in Section 16. (xi) It shall be for the Guardian appointed by the Court to meet the obligations/duties similar to those as described under Section 15 of the National Trust Act and to maintain and submit the accounts similar to those contained in Section 16. (xii) The Guardian so appointed shall bring the appointment to the notice of the Social Welfare Officer having jurisdiction in the place of residence, along with a copy of the verdict appointing him as Guardian, enabling the Social Welfare Officer of the area to visit the person lying in 'comatose state' at random and to submit a report, if so necessitated, calling for further action/ interference of this Court. (xiii) The transactions in respect of the property of the person lying in 'comatose state', by the Guardian, shall be strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. If the Guardian appointed is found to be abusing the power or neglects or acts contrary to the best interest of the person lying in 'comatose state', any relative or next friend may apply to this Court for removal of such Guardian. (xiv) The Guardian appointed shall seek and obtain specific permission from this Court, if he/she intends to transfer the person lying in comatose state from the jurisdiction of this Court to another State or Country, whether it be for availing better treatment or otherwise.” 13. In another judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Uma Mittal & Others v. Union of India reported in AIR 2020 All 202 , it has been held that there is no legislative enactment providing for appointment of a guardian for a person lying in the comatose state. The Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may act as parens patriae and can pass the orders by issuing necessary directions for subserving the ends of justice. It has been held that the Court cannot shirk its responsibility when a distress call is given by a sinking family of a person lying in a comatose state. Paragraphs 20 to 27 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “20. Now the question arises that when there is no legislative enactment, providing for appointment of a guardian for a person lying in a comatose state, how the matter with regard to appointment of guardian should be dealt with. Paragraphs 20 to 27 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “20. Now the question arises that when there is no legislative enactment, providing for appointment of a guardian for a person lying in a comatose state, how the matter with regard to appointment of guardian should be dealt with. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we have been called upon to discharge 'parens patriae' jurisdiction. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass orders and given directions as are necessary for subserving the ends of justice when no remedy is provided in any statute in respect to persons lying in comatose condition. 21. The doctrine of Parens Patriae (father of the country) had originated in British law as early as the 13th century. It implies that the King is the father of the country and is under obligation to look after the interest of those who are unable to look after themselves. The idea behind 'Parens Patriae' is that if a citizen is in need of someone who can act as a parent who can make decisions and take some other action, sometimes the State is best qualified to take on this role. 22. In the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613 (vide paras 35 and 36), the doctrine has been explained in some detail as follows: "In the "Words and Phrases" Permanent Edition, Vol. 33 at page 99, it is stated that parens patriae is the inherent power and authority of a legislature to provide protection to the person and property of persons non sui juris, such as minor, insane, and incompetent persons, but the words parens patriae meaning thereby `the father of the country', were applied originally to the King and are used to designate the State referring to its sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability. Parens patriae jurisdiction, it has been explained, is the right of the sovereign and imposes a duty on the sovereign, in public interest, to protect persons under disability who have no rightful protector. The connotation of the term parens patriae differs from country to country, for instance, in England it is the King, in America it is the people, etc. The government is within its duty to protect and to control persons under disability". 23. The connotation of the term parens patriae differs from country to country, for instance, in England it is the King, in America it is the people, etc. The government is within its duty to protect and to control persons under disability". 23. The duty of the King in feudal times to act as parens patriae (father of the country) has been taken over in modern times by the State. 24. The Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan (supra) has further expanded the jurisdiction of the Court in application of doctrine of parens patriae and has held as under: "45. Thus, the Constitutional Courts may also act as Parens Patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. But the said exercise of power is not without limitation. The courts cannot in every and any case invoke the Parens Patriae doctrine. The said doctrine has to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the parties before it are either mentally incompetent or have not come of age and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the said parties have either no parent/legal guardian or have an abusive or negligent parent/legal guardian. 46. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent, has submitted that the said doctrine has been expanded by the England and Wales Court of Appeal in a case DL v. A Local Authority and others. The case was in the context of "elder abuse" wherein a man in his 50s behaved aggressively towards his parents, physically and verbally, controlling access to visitors and seeking to coerce his father into moving into a care home against his wishes. While it was assumed that the elderly parents did have capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 in that neither was subject to "an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain", it was found that the interference with the process of their decision making arose from undue influence and duress inflicted by their son. The Court of Appeal referred to the judgment in Re: SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity : Marriage) to find that the parens patriae jurisdiction of the High Court existed in relation to "vulnerable if 'capacitous' adults". The Court of Appeal referred to the judgment in Re: SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity : Marriage) to find that the parens patriae jurisdiction of the High Court existed in relation to "vulnerable if 'capacitous' adults". The cited decision of the England and Wales High Court (Family Division) affirmed the existence of a "great safety net" of the inherent jurisdiction in relation to all vulnerable adults. The term "great safety net" was coined by Lord Donaldson in the Court of Appeal judgment which was later quoted with approval by the House of Lords in In Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation. In paragraph 79 of Re: SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity : Marriage), Justice Munby observes:" The inherent jurisdiction can be invoked wherever a vulnerable adult is, or is reasonably believed to be, for some reason deprived of the capacity to make the relevant decision, or disabled from making a free choice, or incapacitated or disabled from giving or expressing a real and genuine consent. The cause may be, but is not for this purpose limited to, mental disorder or mental illness. A vulnerable adult who does not suffer from any kind of mental incapacity may nonetheless be entitled to the protection of the inherent jurisdiction if he is, or is reasonably believed to be, incapacitated from making the relevant decision by reason of such things as constraint, coercion, undue influence or other vitiating factors." 25. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid decisions clearly indicates that the Constitutional Courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. The Constitutional Courts in the country have exercised parens patriae jurisdiction in the matter of child custody, treating the issue of custody of a child to be of paramount concern. Similarly, the doctrine has been invoked in cases where a person who is mentally retarded, is produced before a Court in a writ of Habeas Corpus. These are the rare situations, when the Court can invoke the aforesaid doctrine. 26. In our opinion, in the present case this Court cannot shirk its responsibility when a distress call is given by a sinking family of a person lying in a comatose state for the past year and a half. These are the rare situations, when the Court can invoke the aforesaid doctrine. 26. In our opinion, in the present case this Court cannot shirk its responsibility when a distress call is given by a sinking family of a person lying in a comatose state for the past year and a half. The dominant factor, after all, is not enforcement of rights guaranteeing protection of life of warring parties under Article 226 of the Constitution but the protection of the rights of a human being lying in a comatose state under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court under Article 226 can pass orders and give direction as are necessary for subserving the ends of justice or to protect the person who is lying in a vegetative state. Under the circumstances, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India, is the ultimate guardian of a person who is lying in a comatose/vegetative state and may provide adequate relief of appointment of a Guardian. 27. It may be noted that the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan (supra) has framed certain broad guidelines with regard to appointment of guardian qua a person lying in a comatose state since no specific provision was available in any statute in this regard, The guidelines framed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court appear to be formidable and sound and, therefore, can be used as framework for formulating guidelines that need to be implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh till such time, the legislative enactments are framed and specific provisions are made as to how guardians are to be appointed qua persons in a comatose state.” Reference has been made, in para 24, to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K. M., reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 wherein, the Apex Court, has explained the jurisdiction of the Court in application of doctrine of parens patriae. In para 45 it has been held that the Constitutional Courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. It has also been held that said exercise of power is not without limitation and the Court cannot in every and any case invoke the doctrine of parens patriae. In para 45 it has been held that the Constitutional Courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. It has also been held that said exercise of power is not without limitation and the Court cannot in every and any case invoke the doctrine of parens patriae. Such doctrine has to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the parties before it are either mentally incompetent or have not come of age and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the said parties have either no parent/legal guardian or have an abusive or negligent parent/legal guardian. Paras 39 to 45 of the Judgment read thus: “39. Constitutional Courts in this country exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in matters of child custody treating the welfare of the child as the paramount concern. There are situations when the Court can invoke the parens patriae principle and the same is required to be invoked only in exceptional situations. We may like to give some examples. For example, where a person is mentally ill and is produced before the court in a writ of habeas corpus, the court may invoke the aforesaid doctrine. On certain other occasions, when a girl who is not a major has eloped with a person and she is produced at the behest of habeas corpus filed by her parents and she expresses fear of life in the custody of her parents, the court may exercise the jurisdiction to send her to an appropriate home meant to give shelter to women where her interest can be best taken care of till she becomes a major. 40. In Heller v. Doe, Kennedy, J., speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court, observed: “…. ‘the State has a legitimate interest under its parens patriae powers in providing care to its citizens who are unable ...to care for themselves.’ 41. The Supreme Court of Canada in E. v. Eve observed thus with regard to the doctrine of parens patriae: The parens patriae jurisdiction for the care of the mentally incompetent is vested in the provincial superior courts. Its exercise is founded on necessity. The need to act for the protection of those who cannot care for themselves. The jurisdiction is broad. Its scope cannot be defined. Its exercise is founded on necessity. The need to act for the protection of those who cannot care for themselves. The jurisdiction is broad. Its scope cannot be defined. It applies to many and varied situations, and a court can act not only if injury has occurred but also if it is apprehended. The jurisdiction is carefully guarded and the courts will not assume that it has been removed by legislation. While the scope of the parens partiae jurisdiction is unlimited, the jurisdiction must nonetheless be exercised in accordance with its underlying principle. The discretion given under this jurisdiction is to be exercised for the benefit of the person in need of protection and not for the benefit of others. It must at all times be exercised with great caution, a caution that must increase with the seriousness of the matter. This is particularly so in cases where a court might be tempted to act because failure to act would risk imposing an obviously heavy burden on another person.” 42. The High Court of Australia in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Service v. J.W.B. and S.M.B., speaking through Mason, C.J., Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ., has made the following observations with regard to the doctrine: “71. No doubt the jurisdiction over infants is for the most part supervisory in the sense that the courts are supervising the exercise of care and control of infants by parents and guardians. However, to say this is not to assert that the jurisdiction is essentially supervisory or that the courts are merely supervising or reviewing parental or guardian care and control. As already explained, the Parens Patriae jurisdiction springs from the direct responsibility of the Crown for those who cannot look after themselves; it includes infants as well as those of unsound mind.” 43. Deane J. in the same case stated the following: “4… Indeed, in a modern context, it is preferable to refer to the traditional parens patriae jurisdiction as “the welfare jurisdiction” and to the “first and paramount consideration” which underlies its exercise as “the welfare principle”.” 44. Recently, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, in the case of AC v. OC, has observed: “36. Recently, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, in the case of AC v. OC, has observed: “36. That jurisdiction, protective of those who are not able to take care of themselves, embraces (via different historical routes) minors, the mentally ill and those who, though not mentally ill, are unable to manage their own affairs: Eve, SCR at pp. 407-17; Court of Australia in Deptt. Of Health and Community Servies Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v. JWB and SMB, CLR at p. 258; PB v. BB, Nswsc, paras 7, 8, 40, 42, 57, 58 and 64, 65. 37. A key concept in the exercise of that jurisdiction is that it must be exercised, both in what is done and what is left undone, for the benefit, and in the best interest, of the person (such as a minor) in need of protection.” 45. Thus, the Constitutional Courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. But the said exercise of power is not without limitation. The courts cannot in every and any case invoke the parens patriae doctrine. The said doctrine has to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the parties before it are either mentally incompetent or have not come of age and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the said parties have either no parent/legal guardian or have an abusive or negligent parent/legal guardian.” 14. Further, in the case of Kumudben Arvindbhai Vadera v. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 GLH (4) 507 this Court, while accepting the plea of the petitioner therein, appointed her as a guardian by incorporating various conditions. In another judgment in the case of Vijailakshmi Acharya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu rendered in Writ Petition No.6926 of 2021 and WMP No.7486 of 2021, the High Court of Madras, while adopting the doctrine of parens patriae, appointed the wife as a guardian of the patient, in a comatose state. 15. Therefore, the common thread running through all the judgments is that the Constitutional Courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. 15. Therefore, the common thread running through all the judgments is that the Constitutional Courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, while respectfully agreeing with the law enunciated by the various High Courts so also the nature of the doctrine of parens patriae this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, proposes to pass the present order, giving necessary directions. 16. Notably, this Court has been called upon to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and act as a parens patriae. As has been noted hereinabove, the petitioner, has prayed for declaring her as a guardian and further to deal with the movable and immovable properties of the patient as indicated at page 18 (Annexure ‘E’). Moreover, the legal heirs of the patient are the petitioner and her two children, who have also filed the affidavits indicating that they have no objection if the petitioner is appointed as guardian of the patient and also to deal with the movable and immovable properties. So far as the medical condition of the patient is concerned, the team of doctors was constituted, which has given its report indicating that the patient is not competent to make and execute any decision. It is also not in dispute that the patient is not in a position to take care of himself and is totally dependent on others. 17. Considering the certificate issued by the team of doctors so also the report prepared by the Office of the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate, Rajkot indicating the factum that the petitioner, daughter Trushti Dhaval Bhatt and son Tej Dhaval Bhatt are the legal heirs of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner seeking declaration for being appointed as a guardian of the patient i.e. her husband namely Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt deserves to be acceded to. 18. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition, deserves to be entertained declaring the petitioner as a guardian of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt who is in the state of coma since the year 2014. 18. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition, deserves to be entertained declaring the petitioner as a guardian of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt who is in the state of coma since the year 2014. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be declared as guardian of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt and manager of the movable and immovable properties belonging to the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt mentioned at page 18 (Annexure ‘E’) of the compilation of captioned writ petition. The petitioner, having been appointed as a guardian and manager is permitted and authorised to operate the shares and bank accounts of the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt. 19. With a view to seeing that the present order is adhered to and is observed in its true letter and spirit, and that there is no breach, following conditions are necessitated: i. The petitioner - guardian, shall act always in the best interest of the patient suffering from “comatose state” and shall be responsible for medical care and treatment. ii. The petitioner - guardian shall file, every three months, a report with the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat adverting to the transactions undertaken by the petitioner – guardian in respect of the movable and immovable properties as indicated at page 18 (Annexure ‘E’). Besides, the report shall also indicate the funds, if any, received by the guardian and their utilization, for the purpose of maintaining the patient. iii. The Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, shall cause a separate register to be maintained which shall set out, inter alia, the details of the proceedings, the details of the person appointed as a guardian and orders, if any, passed after the appointment of the guardian. Measures shall also be taken by the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat to preserve the reports filed by the petitioner – guardian from time to time. iv. It should be ensured that there is no misuse of the power or misappropriation of the funds and if, there is, any, or there is no requisite care and protection or support with regard to the treatment being extended to the patient, it will be open to place the matter for further consideration of this Court and to reopen and revoke the power, to take appropriate action against the petitioner – guardian. It will be also open for the Court to appoint another person/public authority/Social Welfare Officer as the guardian. v. It shall be the duty of the petitioner – guardian to meet the obligations/duties similar to those as described under Section 15 and to maintain and submit the accounts similar to those contained in Section 16 of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities” Act, 1999. vi. The petitioner – guardian, shall intimate her appointment to the public official/Social Welfare Officer or officer of the equivalent rank designated by the State Government. The petitioner - guardian as well as the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, will cause a copy of this order of guardianship being served upon such officer. Such officer, shall visit the person lying in comatose state at least once in a week and will generate report of his/her visit. If it is found that the petitioner - guardian is not acting in the best interest of the patient lying in comatose state, such officer will be at liberty to file appropriate application before this Court at the earliest, seeking appropriate directions. vii. The transactions in respect of the movable and immovable peroperties of the patient, by the petitioner - guardian, shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. If the petitioner - guardian is found to be abusing the power or neglects or acts contrary to the best interest of the patient lying in comatose state, it will be open to any relative or next friend to apply to this Court for removal of such guardian. viii. In case a relative or a next friend of the patient lying in a comatose state finds that the guardian is not acting in the best interest of the patient, such person will also have the locus to approach this Court for issuance of appropriate directions and/or for removal of the guardian. ix. The petitioner - guardian shall seek and obtain specific permission from this Court, if he/she intends to transfer the patient lying in a comatose state from the jurisdiction of this Court to another State and/or Country, whether it be for availing better treatment or otherwise. 20. Needless to say that this order shall remain operative until the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt, remains in comatose state. 21. 20. Needless to say that this order shall remain operative until the patient i.e. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt, remains in comatose state. 21. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is partly allowed. 22. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 23. Let the copy of this order be circulated to the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat for information and necessary compliance.