A writ petition challenging inaction by the Principal Secretary to Health regarding an appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of. The court directed the respondent to decide the appeal within two weeks. The petition concerned Human Transplantation Act matters.
Direction to the second respondent to take a decision on the Ext.P10 appeal within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.32635 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONERS:
1 SAJEER AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. AVAROOTTY , POOZHITHARA HOUSE, PANICKERPADI, PERUMANNA, EDARIKODE P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 SHIBU P.V, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE PARAKKAL, NEDUVANNOOR, CHOWARA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN 695 001.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.32635 OF 2019(D)
2
W.P. (C) No. 32635 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P9 order passed by the third respondent under
the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 has been challenged by the first petitioner in Ext.P10 appeal before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the second respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P10 appeal.
as also the learned Government Pleader.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P10 appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
YKB
JUDGE
WP(C).No.32635 OF 2019(D)
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS LIFE PARTNER MYMOONATH DATED 8-7-2019
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDEINTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS SON FEBI P.S DATED 1-6-2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF CHENGAMANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18-06-2019 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CEERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF PEERUMANNAKLARI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 10-06-2019 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIOENRS DATED 12-06-2019 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (FORM 4) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 12-062019 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (FORM 2) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 25-062019 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 19231/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 16-08-2019 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-112019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11-11-2019.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second respondent should issue a direction to decide on the pending appeal before it.
Sajeer
Shibu P.V
State of Kerala
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
