Partly allowed

Anoop Ali M.A v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Kerala HC27 Oct 2020WP(C)/21563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of a District Level Authorization Committee to forward a kidney transplant application due to missing police verification. The Court directed the Local Approval Committee to forward the application to the District Level Committee for consideration, permitting further verifications within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to forward the application to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent to pass orders within three weeks after conducting due verifications.

Anoop Ali M.A Vs the District Level… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020/5TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21563 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANOOP ALI M.A., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. ALI, MAILAKKARA HOUSE, ULIYANNOOR P.O., PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 SAJID A.C., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, ACHUMMADA HOUSE, PAZHAYA BAZAR, PADNE P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD 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 - 683104, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

¶11

2 LOCAL APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL LTD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671315.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC.21563/2020

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 27^th day of October, 2020

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶21

prayer :-

¶22

“Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate and effective steps to issue approval for unrelated kidney transplantation as per Ext.P7 application, within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioner that though an application had been preferred before the 2^nd respondent for effecting an unrelated kidney

¶27

WPC.21563/2020

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

transplant, it has not been forwarded by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that it is not accompanied by a Certificate from the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the verification by the 3^rd respondent is not a condition precedent for the forwarding of the application and the 1^st respondent, who is the Authority under the enactment can call for reports of the 3^rd respondent, if required.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, however, submitted that the petitioner has not submitted application to the 2^nd respondent, supported by requisite documents. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner tendered the application, the 2^nd respondent refused to accept the same.

¶31

Having considered the contentions advanced and having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am of the opinion that the application sought to be preferred by the petitioner is liable to be considered by the 1^st respondent in accordance with law.

¶32

WPC.21563/2020

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

Accordingly, there will be a direction permitting the petitioner to re-submit Ext.P7 application to the 2^nd

¶35

respondent. On receipt of the application, the 2^nd respondent is directed to forward Ext.P7 application to the 1^st respondent for consideration, at the earliest. The 1^st respondent shall conduct all due verifications including by reference to the 3^rd respondent, if found necessary, and shall pass appropriate orders after considering all relevant aspects of the matter. Orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶37

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/27.10.2020

WPC.21563/2020

: 5 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN OF KERALA HEALTH SERVICES, ALUVA, DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS MOTHER DATED 28.09.2020. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER SISTER DATED 28.09.2020. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF PADNE GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 17.09.2020. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF KADUNGALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 29.09.2020. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.09.2020. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.09.2020.

Anoop Ali M.A v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Ali M.A 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Mahesh P.G., Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations

Shri. N.J.Pappachan Vs the Poothadi Grama Panchayath

Vallikkat Earth Movers Vs the General Manager

Renandranadhan K.B Vs State of Kerala

Princy Mathew Vs a.Shajahan

Mahabodhi International Spiritual & Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala