Disposed

Abhilash K.Thomas v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020WP(C)/19189/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved a kidney patient seeking transplantation. The Court directed the Local Approval Committee to forward the application file to the District Level Authorization Committee within three days for prompt consideration under the relevant Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent was directed to forward the application to the 1st respondent within three days; the 1st respondent was directed to consider the application.

Abhilash K.Thomas Vs the District Level Authorization… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19189 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABHILASH K.THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, AARATTUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY, PIN-683 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶11

2 LOCAL APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, RAJAGIRI HOSPITAL, CHUNANGAMVELY ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 112, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHATHANNUR, CHATHANNUR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 572.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SMT.N.S.SOUMYA MOL SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.19189 of 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is a kidney patient, who is undergoing treatment in the Rajagiri Hospital, Aluva. The writ petition is filed complaining that the 2^nd respondent is not forwarding the application

¶19

which he submitted along with the relevant documents, stating that the 2^nd respondent is waiting for the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police.

¶20

2. The 2^nd respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that petitioner is undergoing treatment and he is in stage-V, undergoing dialysis in his native place and he needs a renal transplantation for avoiding hemodialysis. It is also stated that a certificate was already issued him on 09.01.2020 with respect to the kidney transplantation and since he requested for the same again another letter was given on 25.08.2020. The 2^nd respondent also stated that the application in the proforma was not yet received.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.19189 of 2020

¶22

¶23

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the filing of the counter affidavit, petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 application in the prescribed form along with Exts.P1 to P9 documents.

¶24

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that they have since received all the documents except the report from the 3^rd respondent.

¶25

5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides including the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

A decision on the application for kidney

¶27

transplantation is to be taken by the 1^st respondent – District Level Authorisation Committee, constituted under Section 9(4)(b) of the Transplantation of Humans Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 after considering the same in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9(5) of the Act and the Transplantation of Humans Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. Now that application and the documents are with the

¶28

W.P.(C) No.19189 of 2020

¶29

¶30

2^nd respondent, it is for the 2^nd respondent to forward it to the 1^st respondent at the earliest and on receipt of the same, the 1^st respondent to consider it in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9 as well as the provisions contained in Rule 7(3) of the 2014 Rules in accordance with law and if necessary, after calling for report from the 3^rd respondent. Therefore 2^nd respondent shall forward the application Ext.P10 along with all necessary documents to the 1^st respondent within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The 1^st respondent shall thereupon consider the same along with all the documents

¶31

and reports in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶33

disposed of. Sd/-

¶34

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No.19189 of 2020

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.02.2020. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER AND THE DONOR DATED 09.03.2020. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS WIFE DATED 11.02.2020. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS SISTER DATED 11.02.2020. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE DONOR DATED 26.06.2020. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE WIFE OF THE DONOR DATED 22.06.2020. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE SISTER OF THE DONOR DATED 22.06.2020. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, KERALA DATED 26.06.2020. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER DONOR AND HIS WIFE DATED 22.06.2020. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM III APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE DONOR DATED 15.09.2020. EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.29750/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 08.10.2018.

¶41

W.P.(C) No.19189 of 2020

¶42

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT R2(1) THE COPY OF THE UNRELATED TRANSPLANT CHECK LIST FOR THE RECIPIENT. EXHIBI R2(2) THE COPY OF THE UNRELATED TRANSPLANT WORK UP CHECK LIST OF DONOR. EXHIBIT R2(3) COMPUTER PRINT OUT OF THE LETTER DATED 258-2020.

Abhilash K.Thomas v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash K.Thomas v. the District Level Authorization Committee

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

Carlos George Vs Dr.Vijayakumar.G.Sarkar

Mohanan v. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Mohanan v Vs Kerala Water Authority

Team One Advertising Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Usha Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kwa

Niza Kaladharan Vs Mahatma Gandhi University