Priya Janki Podar Vs Vinod Kumar Poddar and Ors.

¶1

$~12

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

LPA 1196/2024 and CM APPLs.72345-48/2024 PRIYA JANKI PODAR .....Appellant Through: Ms Shyel Trehan, Sr. Advocate with Mr A.K. Chauhan, Mr Rahul Chauhan, Mr Rohan Poddar, Mr Amit Kumar and Mr Sumit Kumar, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

VINOD KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, Sr. Advocate with Mr Abhishek Gupta and Mr Praful Shukla, Advocates for R1 and R2.

¶6

Ms Swathi Sukumar, Amicus Curiae . Mr Udit Malik, ASC with Ms Rima Rao and Ms Palak Sharma, Advocates for GNCTD.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 16.01.2025

¶8

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3349/2024 captioned Vinod Kumar Poddar & Anr. v. Local Level Committee through DC South Delhi & Ors . The appellant is, essentially, aggrieved by the directions for relocating Mr Rohan Poddar to a residential facility at Shaurya Foundation, Palwal, Haryana for few days for initial assessment and further consequential directions. It is the appellant’s contention that removing Mr

¶9

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:01:21

¶10

Rohan Poddar from his current location would be detrimental to his wellbeing.

¶11

To evaluate the question whether Mr Rohan Poddar could be moved to the named institution for assessment and other attendant matters, this court had requested the Superintendent of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to constitute a medical board for evaluation of Mr Rohan Poddar at his current location. The medical board was so constituted and has furnished its report. The report does not contain recommendations as to whether Mr Rohan Poddar can be moved or not. However, it points out that if Mr Rohan Poddar is to be moved, it would be necessary that the institution in which he is moved gives him space commensurate with his current living quarters. It also highlights that Mr Rohan Poddar is attached with his care givers and if he is to be weaned from them, certain procedure is required to be followed.

¶12

Clearly, whether Mr Rohan Poddar is required to continue to remain in his current location or move to a new location is a decision that would necessarily be premised on the question whether an arrangement can be put in place for active supervision of him and his care givers at his current location. It is thus necessary to also examine the question of appointing a guardian to Mr Rahul Poddar, which would also be germane to the decision whether to move him to an institution (and if so, which institution) or to permit him to remain at his current location. Additionally, there would also be a requirement to safeguard his wealth to ensure that it inures to his benefit during his lifetime. The learned amicus curiae suggests that given the various facets of this issue, the matter be remanded to the learned Single Judge to take a comprehensive view. She points out that the appellant had moved the present appeal against the interim order apprehending that the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:01:21

¶15

immediate removal of Mr Rohan Poddar from his current location may be detrimental to him. That issue is now settled and it is clear that he is not required to be moved until a final decision is taken. The learned counsel for the other parties are ad idem with the contentions advanced by the learned amicus curiae.

¶16

In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order. The learned Single Judge would take a comprehensive view, which would include considering the evaluation report that has been furnished by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital as well as the question of appointing a guardian and safeguarding Mr Rohan Poddar’s wealth.

¶17

It is clarified that all contentions of the parties are reserved including in respect of the aforesaid evaluation report furnished by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.

¶18

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications shall also stand closed.

¶19

We express our gratitude to the learned amicus curiae for the assistance provided to this court beyond the call of duty.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

¶21

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶22

JANUARY 16, 2025/ tr

¶23

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶24

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:01:21

Priya Janki Podar v. Vinod Kumar Poddar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Janki Podar v. Vinod Kumar Poddar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhinav Jindal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 52 1

Media Council of India Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ravinder Vs Union of India

M D Overseas Private Limited through Managing Director Mr Satish Bansal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 14 & Ors.

Haryana Carbons Privated Limited Vs Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Sunshine Capital Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, WARD-24(1), Delhi & Ors.