JUDGMENT (Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare the petitioner Maya (alias) Maya Vijayamma as the guardian of her husband Mr.N.Krishnan Nair who is in a comatosa condition, presently in a vegetative state of mind to protect his interest, to collect income, liabilities, backwages, deposits, administer his bank accounts, investments etc., and in the event of necessity to manage the immovable properties of land and building bearing Plot No.19 to an extent of one ground (2400 square feet) in No.8, Ayyancheri Village, comprised in Survey No.6/2, Chengalpet Taluk, then Chengai Anna District presently Chengalpet District and Kattankulathur Panchayat Union limits was approved as reference No.C.S.A.R./D.T.C.P 86-120 L.P.95 within the Registration District of Madras South and Sub Registration District of Guduvancheri, and land and building being house sit in Kolathuvancheri Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, now Kanchipuram District comprised in Survey No.15 part, to an extent of 6,540 sq.ft. within Sub Registration District of Saidapet and Registration District of South Madras standing in her husband Mr.Krishnan Nair and to use the income to her husband and family welfare expenses.) The petitioner''s husband is in comatose stage. Therefore, she requires herself to be appointed as the guardian for her husband under Section 58 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 2. When the matter came up before this Court on 10.08.2023, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that under the National Trust Act, and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Collector is empowered to grant guardianship only for persons with disability, and that this is limited to cases of autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation or a combination of any two or more such conditions, and includes a person suffering from severe multiple disabilities. He also added that the second respondent / District Collector may not be able to take a call unless a report is made available by a medical team. 3. This Court required the Directorate of Medical Education to constitute a team of doctors to examine the husband of the petitioner and to advise the District Collector, so as to enable him to take a decision. 4. 3. This Court required the Directorate of Medical Education to constitute a team of doctors to examine the husband of the petitioner and to advise the District Collector, so as to enable him to take a decision. 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Director of Medical Education and Research also required the Director, Institute of Neurology , Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai to conduct medical inspection of the petitioner''s husband and submit a report. The Director Incharge and Professor, Institute of Neurology, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai has examined the petitioner''s husband with a team of doctors and submitted a medical report dated 14.08.2023, a copy of which is also produced before the Court, and the report reads as below : "Patient was apparently normal till December 2022. First, he developed memory disturbance in the form of forgetting things, misplacing objects and searching for objects. Subsequently, he developed behavioural symptoms, in the form of excessive anger with anger outbursts. Later, patient also developed wandering behaviour, visual hallucinations and excessive craving for sweets. All his memory disturbances were progressive with a history of decreased sleep and unconcerned micturition since March 2023. He was unable to do his day to day activities and is completely bed ridden for the past three months. For past one and half months, he has difficulty in recognising his family members and speaks only one or two words with no appropriate response to questions. He also has tremulousness in both upper limbs without any history of seizure or head injury or any medical illnesses. For the above symptoms, patient was evaluated in Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences from 10/04/2023 to 15/04/2023, where he was diagnosed to have probable Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. MRI BRAIN (19/03/2023) (only report is available, image is not available) showed features suggestive of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. EEG (20/02/2023) done showed features suggestive of diffuse cerebral dysfunction with epileptogenic potential. Autoimmune encephalitis and paraneoplastic panel of antibodies in serum and CSF were negative. The present clinical examination reveals, patient is in a bedridden state, is conscious, awake, not obeying commands, does not speak and occasionally utters his name or repeated calls. Patient is totally unable to understand, read or write, is in an akinetic mute state and is poorly cooperative for detailed cognitive assessment and hence cognitive assessment could not be done. The present clinical examination reveals, patient is in a bedridden state, is conscious, awake, not obeying commands, does not speak and occasionally utters his name or repeated calls. Patient is totally unable to understand, read or write, is in an akinetic mute state and is poorly cooperative for detailed cognitive assessment and hence cognitive assessment could not be done. Cranial nerve examination showed bilateral pupils are equal and reacting to light and Doll''s eye movement was present. He has rigidity in all four limbs with exaggerated deep tendon reflexes. There is flexion of all four limbs to pain. He has rest tremors in both upper limbs. He needs assistance for sitting and could not be made to stand, and cannot walk without support." And this medical report has not been considered by the District Collector. 5. The Collector has also taken a call based on the recommendations of the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, who vide his proceedings dated 23.08.2023, would state that the petitioner''s husband case will not fall within the province of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner''s husband who is now in a comatose stage, owns several immovable properties and bank accounts with sufficient funds, and that in order to administer his accounts and to manage his properties, the petitioner may be appointed as his guardian. He relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Shobha Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala [2019 SCC OnLine Ker 739 : (2019) 2 KLJ 549 ] and it is relevant to extract paragraph No.42, which reads as under : "42. 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 v. 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. It is something like ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction. A reference to the verdict in Nothman v. 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 v. Union of India[ 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. 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." 7. This Court prima facie considers that the second respondent / District Collector has lifted the definition under the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, and telescoped the same into the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 8. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016 defines a person with disability and a person with disability having high support needs in Section 2(s) and 2(t) of the Act. 8. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016 defines a person with disability and a person with disability having high support needs in Section 2(s) and 2(t) of the Act. They read as below: 2(s) : "person with disability" means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others; 2(t) : "person with disability having high support needs" means a person with benchmark disability certified under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 58 who needs high support;" 9. Unlike the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, Section 2(s) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016, does not get into any specific mental ailment or disorder, but categorises the person with disability in wider terms. A close reading of the provisions will only indicate that if a person cannot manage his own affairs using his own intelligence, due to all or any of the conditions stipulated therein, such a physical, mental or sensory impairment affecting his effective participation in the society, then this Act steps into aid of those unfortunate citizens. 10. This Court would have appreciated if the District Collector had consolidated both Section 2(s) and 2(t) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016, instead of the report of the Director of Medical Board. This Court therefore directs the second respondent, the District Collector to take a decision in terms of what is herein above stated and to appoint the petitioner as a guardian for her husband. Since the medical report produced by the Director Incharge and Professor, Institute of Neurology, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai does not satisfies this Court with a degree of confidence that the petitioner''s husband can live in this condition on his own without the support of any, the District Collector is required to make necessary orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.