JUDGMENT : Maulik J.Shelat, J. 1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Pranav Dhagat waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent/s. 2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following prayers; “11. A. Hon’ble Court be please to admit and allow present application and furthermore, Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint present petitioner as guardian of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya and his movable and immovable property of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya specifically listed in annexure A to this petition in the interest of justice; B. Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order enabling present petitioner to sell immovable properties of the patient Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya so as to pay debts of patient as well as maintain petitioner and her family and pay medical expenses of patient Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya in the interest of justice; C. Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an ad interim relief enabling petitioner to maintain bank accounts of patient Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya being guardian of the patient in the interest of justice; D. Any other order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice. E. Hon’ble Court may please by an interim relief, allow the petitioner herein to make sale of the property described at Sr. No. 18 at Annexure A for the purpose of sustenance as well as maintaining the husband, who is in vegetative state with medical and other expenses.” 3. The petitioner happens to be wife of one Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya seeking declaration from this Court to be appointed as guardian of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya herein after referred as “husband of the petitioner”. 4. The short facts which are necessary for adjudication of present petition are as under; 4.1 Petitioner happens to be wife of Mr. Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya and out of their wedlock, they are blessed with one daughter namely Rutvi on 08.07.2006 and son namely Harshil on 01.11.2007 and at present they are aged about 17 and 16 years respectively. It is the case of petitioner that husband of petitioner was practicing doctor by profession, who unfortunately received Cerebro Vascular Stroke (C. V. Stroke) on 02.08.2022. He was undergone 4 major and 3 minor surgeries but not recovered out of such stroke. It is the case of petitioner that husband of petitioner was practicing doctor by profession, who unfortunately received Cerebro Vascular Stroke (C. V. Stroke) on 02.08.2022. He was undergone 4 major and 3 minor surgeries but not recovered out of such stroke. It is further stated by petitioner that currently husband is under comatose condition and treating doctors are not in a position to confirm time of his recovery. 4.2 The petitioner has placed on record a certificate dated 25.05.2023 issued by Dr. Navubha J. Sodha having degree of MD, DNB, FCCS, PFCC, EDIC, Consultant Intensivist, Anesthesiologist & Pain Specialist, Bhuj whereby doctor concern in clear terms stated that the husband of the petitioner is not following any command, he is bedridden under nursing care and chances of recovery is difficult in this massive stroke. 4.3 It is the case of petitioner that her husband is unable to do anything, not in a position to speak or to move from bed and he is completely in a vegetative state. According to the petitioner, she being a house wife, she has a responsibility of maintaining her husband as well as children but she would unable to discharge such responsibility in absence of any financial resources which can be utilized by her either operating bank account of her husband or selling off his immovable properties so mentioned in the petition. 4.4 According to the petitioner, her husband was sole bread earner of family as both her children are minor. Thereby, she is not in a position to meet with day to day expenses to be incurred either for treatment of her husband or for study of the children and to maintain day to day needs of family. She has further submitted that till date, family of the petitioner has incurred huge expenses for best possible treatment of her husband but henceforth, in absence of any financial help, petitioner may not be in a position to look after day to day affairs of the family as well as medical expenses of her husband. 4.5 Petitioner further stated that except two children who are minor, there are no other Class I legal heirs of her husband. The said fact has been stated by petitioner by submitting heirship declaration produced with the petition. 4.5 Petitioner further stated that except two children who are minor, there are no other Class I legal heirs of her husband. The said fact has been stated by petitioner by submitting heirship declaration produced with the petition. 4.6 Thus, with the above stated factual situation, predicament and condition of her husband, petitioner has approached this Court seeking declaration to be appointed as a guardian of her husband. 5. This Court vide its order dated 26.07.2024 has directed respondent No.2 – Collector, Bhuj- Kachchh to authorise a team of expert doctors to examine husband of the petitioner and prepare a detail opinion / report regarding health and Comatose state. It was directed by this Court to submit report of medical expert within three weeks from appointment of team of doctors to this Court. 5.1 It appears that pursuant to such order, a team of doctors was appointed by respondent No.2 who in turn has visited the house of the husband of the petitioner on 12.09.2024 and prepare their joint report with their conclusion which forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court by letter dated 12.09.2024 by the District Medical Officer – cum – Civil Surgeon, Kutchchh. Copy of such letter and report are on record. The medical report reads as under; “As per letter from Chief District Medical Officer Cum Civil Surgeon alter no. 2313/15/2024 dated 05/09/2024 the expert doctor's committee visit on 12/09/2024 at 15: 30 hours at Mr. Hariivan Hadiya's some Plot No.16, Bhanushalinagar, Mundra Road, Kutch: It was found that Mr. Harjivan Hadiya is suffering from hypertension for the last 10 to 12 years and diabetes mellitus for the past 3 to 4 years. He suffered from an Acute CV stroke on 02/08/2022 for which he has received treatment initially at Bhuj, followed by at CIMS Hospital, Ahmedabad, from 03/08/2022 to 10/08/2022, where he underwent a mechanical thrombectomy on 05/08/2022. Later, from 11/08/2022 to 31/10/2022, he was treated at Accord Hospital, Bhuj, and underwent a TP shunt. After that, he has received home-based treatment. On 12/09/24, during the expert doctor's committee visit, it was found that Mr. Harjivan Hadiya is bedridden and afebrile with a pulse rate of 98/min, BP of 140/80 mmHg, and SpO2 of 94% on room air (without Oz support). He has a tracheostomy, PEG, and Foley's catheter in situ. After that, he has received home-based treatment. On 12/09/24, during the expert doctor's committee visit, it was found that Mr. Harjivan Hadiya is bedridden and afebrile with a pulse rate of 98/min, BP of 140/80 mmHg, and SpO2 of 94% on room air (without Oz support). He has a tracheostomy, PEG, and Foley's catheter in situ. He had spontaneous left sided eye opening and eye movements, with left pupils normal in size and reactive to light. On the right eye. tarsorrhaphy was noted. However, he is not following any verbal commands. He is noted to have flickering movement on limbs on deep painful stimuli. As per medical records, he is in this post Cerebrovascular stroke vegetative state since last 2 years till the present date. Coming to conclusion, 1. The patient is "COMPLETELY PHYSICALLY INVALID", i.e., unable to take any self-care or communicate, even with gestures. 2. How long such a "PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE may last is difficult to comment on. However, except for a miracle, this persistent vegetative state may remain for long.” 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that considering medical evidence submitted by petitioner and in view of aforesaid medical opinion come on record, its undisputed facts tha husband of petitioner is in comatose and chances of his recovery is minimal or none than prayers made in the petition may be accepted court. 6.1 He would further submit 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. So, he would submit that in absence of any legislation as on date exist under which petitioner could have approached any other court of law or authority except this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking declaration as sought for. 6.2. So, he would submit that in absence of any legislation as on date exist under which petitioner could have approached any other court of law or authority except this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking declaration as sought for. 6.2. To buttress his arguments, he is placing reliance upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a case of Dipaben W/O. Dhaval Laxmikant Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2022 (2) GLR 1559 thereby, he would submit that in similar factual situation after considering the Comatose situation, wife was appointed as a guardian by this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2PhUnder the circumstances, it is urged that the prayer of the petitioner be acceded to of declaring the petitioner as a guardian of her husband namely Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya. 6.3 Thus, learned advocate for the petitioner would request this Court to grant prayer in favour of petitioner. 7. Per Contra, Learned AGP Mr. Dhagat would submit that as per the said report in the form of medical opinion confirmed one fact that at present, husband of the petitioner is in a comatose state. So, he requested this Court to pass appropriate order by protecting best interest of the husband of the petitioner. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material as well as medical report and opinion made available on record. 9. Perusal of Medical Report by the team of expert doctors clearly suggests that husband of the petitioner is mentally and physically invalid i.e. unable to take self-care or communicate even with gesture. It is also not certain how long such persistent vegetative stage may last. According to the team of medical experts, except for miracle, this stage will remain for long. Thus, it is coming on record and prima facie this Court also feel that husband of the petitioner is living vegetative life and chances of his recovery is minimum. 10. It is also not certain how long such persistent vegetative stage may last. According to the team of medical experts, except for miracle, this stage will remain for long. Thus, it is coming on record and prima facie this Court also feel that husband of the petitioner is living vegetative life and chances of his recovery is minimum. 10. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in case of Dipaben (supra), which reads as under; “[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). 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. 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 Mental Health Act, 1987 and PWD Act, 1995 came to be the new legislations, such as the Mental Healthcare Act persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in conformity the relevant statutes like repealed, on introducing 2017 and The Rights of 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. 35. 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.….." [13] In another judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Uma Mittal & Others v. Union of India, 2020 AIR(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. 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. 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 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. 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 19. 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) 20 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: Sterilisation21. 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. 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. 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. 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., 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. 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. 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. Doe15, Justice Kennedy, 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. (Mrs.) v. Eve16 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. 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. 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.17, 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. 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: Re Eve SCR at 407-17; Court of Australia in Deptt. Of Health and Community Services Secretary, Department of Health and Community Servics 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. 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, 2020 (4) GLH 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. 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.” 11. Thus, in view of above, after going through the medical opinion and certificate of husband of the petitioner, which confirms his comatose state and law laid down by this Court and various other High Courts in similar type of factual situation, this Court also agreeing with such views than deem it fit to accepts prayer of the petitioner to be appointed as guardian of her husband to look after his movable and immovable properties specifically listed at annexure A to the petition. It requires to be noted here that other class-I legal heirs of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya are minor at present and petitioner being mother of those minor would be their natural guardian then at this stage, this court would not like to appoint any other person except petitioner as guardian of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya. 12. It requires to be noted here that other class-I legal heirs of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya are minor at present and petitioner being mother of those minor would be their natural guardian then at this stage, this court would not like to appoint any other person except petitioner as guardian of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present writ petition deserves to be allowed declaring the petitioner as a guardian of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya, who is in comatose state since 2022. Thus, petitioner is ordered to be declared / appointed as a guardian of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya to manage and look after movable and immovable properties belonging to her husband mentioned at Annexure A (page 8 to 12) of the captioned writ petition. 13. The petitioner having been appointed as guardian, is permitted and authorised to operate and deal with shares, bank accounts, post office account, insurance policy etc. of Harjivan Manjibhai Hadiya for betterment of her husband and for welfare of her family. 14. 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, High Court of Gujarat, adverting to the transactions undertaken by the petitioner - guardian in respect of the movable and immovable properties listed at Annexure ‘A’ (page 8 to 12). 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. 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 properties 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. 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. 15. Needless to say that this order shall remain operative until the husband of the petitioner i.e. Harjivan Mavjibhai Hadiya, remains in comatose state. 16. Before parting with judgement, this court feels so that considering present lifestyle of citizen and number of such type of cases like present one may increase in future than in absence of any legislation having so observed herein above, it is a need of hour to have some legislation to take care and welfare of such person who is in comatose state or like condition. So, keeping in mind directive principles of state policy enshrined in Part-IV of the Constitution of India, this court suggests to a social welfare department of ‘State’, if so desire either to bring legislation and or policy whereby a person who is desirous to become guardian of an Adult in comatose state condition or like condition can approach court of law and or any authority appointed under the legislation in an area where such Adult is living in precarious condition like comatose state or like condition than it will mucvenient easier fsuce iterested son to approach the court and or the authority concern. 17. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the petition is partly allowed. 18. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 19. Let the copy of this order be circulated to the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat for information and necessary compliance. 20. 17. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the petition is partly allowed. 18. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 19. Let the copy of this order be circulated to the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat for information and necessary compliance. 20. Let the copy of this order be sent to Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi.