Disposed

Pramod K. v. the District Level Authorisation

Kerala HC12 Sept 2014WP(C)/23747/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined defects in forms submitted for kidney transplant authorization under Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act. It held minor defects were curable but directed the petitioner to fill the blank recipient identification marks. The lower authorities were ordered to process the corrected application within a week and decide within three more weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to fill blank recipient identification marks, the court ordered the 2nd respondent to process the application within a week and the 1st respondent to decide within three weeks

Pramod K. Vs the District Level… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/21ST BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 23747 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PRAMOD K., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.CHELLAPPAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. RAJAN P., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, PUNNASSERY HOUSE, KANJIRAMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ALAPPUZHA. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN POST ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 001.

¶12

2. LOCAL APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

3. THE DEPARTMENT OF NEPHROLOGY, LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD OF DEPARTMENT.

¶14

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.RAJESH CHERIAN SRI.R.RAJA RAJA VARMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS R1 BY SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 23747 of 2014 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P-1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2014.

¶21

EXT.P-2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DONOR RECIPIENT IDENTIFICATION FROM DATED 16.7.2014.

¶22

EXT.P-3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION FORM OF THE DONOR DATED 16.7.2014.

¶23

EXT.P-4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE RECIPIENT DATED 30.7.2014.

¶24

EXT.P-5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE DONOR DATED 30.7.2014.

¶25

EXT.P-6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE NEAR RELATIVE OF THE DONOR DATED 30.7.2014.

¶26

EXT.P-7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE NEAR RELATIVE OF THE DONOR DATED 31.7.2014

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

¶28

//TRUE COPY//

¶29

P.A TO JUDGE

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶31

W.P.(C).No.23747 of 2014

¶32

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2014

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

1.The 1^st petitioner is a Kidney patient. The 2^nd petitioner is the donor. He has agreed to donate Kidney to the 1^st petitioner. 1^st petitioner approached 2^nd respondent, seeking permission under Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. It appears that there were certain defects on the application and that has not been processed and forwarded to the 1^st respondent.

¶35

2.It is submitted that the petitioner has taken back the original application. The defects that were pointed out to the petitioner were apparent on Exhibits P2 and P3. In Exhibit P2, marks of identification of the recipient is left blank. It is also pointed out that the seal in Exhibit P3 is affixed on the face of the photograph and the Village Officer's seal is not discernible.

¶36

I am of the view that the defects as pointed out in Exhibit P3

¶37

W.P.C.23747/14

¶38

¶39

as such are not material or fundamental and that can be considered as cured as petitioner has no role in affixing the signature and seal. However, petitioner cannot leave Exhibit P2, regarding identification of the recipient as blank. If petitioner cures the defects regarding marks of identification of the recipient, he can resubmit the application. The 2^nd respondent shall process such application and forwarded to the 1^st respondent within a week from the date of receipt of such application. The first respondent thereafter shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders within three weeks on receipt of application from 2^nd respondent.

¶40

Sd/- (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE)

¶41

TRUE COPY

¶42

P.A TO JUDGE

¶43

Pramod K. v. the District Level Authorisation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod K. v. the District Level Authorisation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alexander John Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Manoj Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Basid (Minor) Vs Mr.K.C.Sanu

K.M. John Vs State of Kerala

Renju K.K. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Puthencuruz