VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2016 › High Court of Delhi

Pratibha Pande and Anr v. Union of India and Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
24 February 2016
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 10198/2015

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. FEBRUARY 24, 2016 'gsr'/pp.

Case details

Parties and counsel

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th February, 2016 + W.P.(C) NO. 10198/2015, CMs No.25224/2015 (for stay) & 27297/2015 (for appointment of P-2 as Guardian ad litem) PRATIBHA PANDE AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Mr. Princy Ponnan & Ms. Taran Gupta, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Adv. for R-1&3. Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Adv. for R-4,7&8. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The petition impugns the Minutes of the Meeting held on 24th September, 2015 of the respondent No.3 the Local Level Committee (LLC), New Delhi (South District) constituted under Section 13 of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (National Trust Act) rejecting the application of the petitioner no.2 Ms. Madhvi Pande for appointment as guardian of her mother i.e. the petitioner no.1 herein on the ground that the respondent No.4 Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital, New Delhi had clarified that the petitioner No.1 cannot be categorized as a person suffering from multiple disabilities under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act) read with National Trust Act. 2. It is the case of the petitioners: (i) that the petitioners no.1 aged about 60 years, was married to one Mr. Jyoti Swarup Pande and from which marriage has two children i.e. a daughter Ms. Madhvi Pande (petitioner no.2) and a son viz. Mr. Vinayak Pande; (ii) that the petitioner no.1 is otherwise estranged from her husband since 1987 and been living separately; (iii) that the petitioner no.1 till March, 2014 was carrying on business as a Director of Allwyn Cooper Pvt. Ltd.; she was in March 2014 diagnosed with suffering from a rare and debilitating neurodegenerative disease and within four weeks lost her ability to perform activities of daily living and suffered from progressive dementia and in May, 2014 went into a coma; (iv) that since the disease from which the petitioner no.1 was suffering could not be confirmed in India, the petitioner no.1 was flown to Philadelphia, United States of America (USA) where she was found to be suffering from sporadic Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (CJD) and was on 23rd May, 2014 brought back to India and though was initially admitted to Fortis Hospital but upon the doctors advising that till her eventual demise, she would remain in comatose condition only, was brought home i.e. D-353, Second Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi; (v) that the petitioner since May, 2014 has been in a comatose persistent vegetative state; (vi) that the petitioner no.1 has Savings Bank Account no.3066324734 with the respondent no.5 Central Bank of India (CBI), Ashoka Hotel branch, New Delhi having a sum of Rs.4,13,70,925/- as on 5th October, 2015 and Savings Bank Account No.1021771857 with the respondent.6 Bank of India (BoI), Khan Market branch, New Delhi having a sum of Rs.3,27,581/- as on 5th October, 2015; however the petitioner no.1 is the sole signatory of the said accounts and being in a comatose situation is unable to draw any monies therefrom; (vii) that the petitioner no.1 is also the owner of property no.G-3, Dhawandeep Building, 6, Jantar Mantar Lane, New Delhi fetching a rent of Rs.1,32,000/- per month; (viii) that the expenses of the treatment and nursing care of the petitioner no.1 till now have been met by taking loan of Rs.60,04,473/- (USD 92,671 converted into rupees at Rs.64.79p to a dollar) from Dr. Pragati Shukla, sister of the petitioner no.1 living in USA and from M/s Allwyn Cooper Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioner no.1 is a Director and partly from the rent aforesaid earned from the properties of the petitioner no.1 and cheques whereof are being deposited in the bank account in the joint names of the two petitioners and money wherefrom is being drawn by the petitioner no.2; (ix) that

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.