Allowed

Jini Sebastian, v. the District Level Authorisation Committee

Kerala HC8 Feb 2021WP(C)/2500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay by the Local Approval Committee in forwarding an unrelated kidney donation application to the District Level Authorisation Committee. The court directed the Local Approval Committee to forward the documents within three days and the District Level Authorisation Committee to examine and decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd respondent to forward application to 1st respondent within three days; direction to 1st respondent to decide within one month.

Jini Sebastian, Vs the District Level… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(C).No.2500/2021-J 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶5

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

¶6

WP(C).No.2500 OF 2021(J)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 JINI SEBASTIAN, AGED 42 YEARS WIFE OF SEBASTIAN, KAITHAKODAN HOUSE, PERINCHERRY P.O., PIN-680 306, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SUNIL

¶10

AGED 39 YEARS

¶11

SON OF SREEDHARAN, GANGA BHAVANAM, KARALI P.O., 690 521, WEST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B.

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE, FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, POST KALAMASSERY, PIN-680 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶15

2 LOCAL APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL LTD., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶16

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTARAKKARA – 691 506.

¶17

SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.R.S.KALKURA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C).No.2500/2021-J

¶20

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The 1^st petitioner is a kidney patient undergoing treatment in the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam and she is advised to have transplantation of kidney. It

¶23

is stated that since there is nobody among her close relatives, the 2^nd petitioner has come forward to donate his kidney. The Writ Petition is filed alleging that the 2^nd respondent is not taking any action to forward the application to the 1^st respondent and they are waiting for the report from the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

Sri R.S.Kalkura, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, though on instructions submits that the petitioners have not submitted any application so far, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P3 application is already submitted before the 2^nd respondent along with Ext.P2 joint affidavit and other relevant documents including Ext.P4.

¶25

It is also submitted on behalf of the 2^nd respondent that in case the petitioner submits the application along with all the requisite documents, they will forward the same to the 1^st respondent.

¶26

The transplantation of kidney from unrelated donors are governed by Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 ('the Act, 1994') and Rule 7(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 ('the Rules 2014'). The 1^st respondent is the authority constituted for examining the applications for transplantation of kidney in such circumstances

¶27

W.P(C).No.2500/2021-J

¶28

¶29

when the donor is not related to the donee, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and Rules.

¶30

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to forward the application Ext.P3 to the 1^st respondent along with all the documents within a period of three days. There shall be a further direction to the 1^st respondent to examine the said application along with relevant documents after obtaining a report from the 3^rd respondent and to take a decision on it in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9(3) of the Act, 1994 and Rule 7(3) of the Rules, 2014, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶31

Sd/- ( P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶32

rtr/

¶33

W.P(C).No.2500/2021-J

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONSULTANT NEPHROLOGIST, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 13.1.2021.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.9.2020 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 3 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER, DONOR DATED 17.9.2020.

¶40

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE EXT.P3 APPLICATION.

Jini Sebastian, v. the District Level Authorisation Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jini Sebastian, v. the District Level Authorisation 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

He -Man Auto Robopark (P) Limited Vs Union of India

He-Man Auto Robopark (P) Limited Vs Union of India

He-Man Auto Robopark (P) Limited Vs Union of India

Saraswathy B. Vs S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao

Thoppil Infra Associates Vs the State of Kerala

Godvin Fernandaz Vs Union Bank of India