Disposed

Rajeevan, v. the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

Kerala HC15 Feb 2021WP(C)/3716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of the 2nd respondent in forwarding an application to the 1st respondent for kidney transplantation. The High Court directed the 2nd respondent to forward the applications to the 1st respondent within one month. The court held that the 2nd respondent should not wait for the police report.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent directed to forward applications to the 1st respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

Rajeevan, Vs the District Level Authorization… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.3716 OF 2021(L)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RAJEEVAN, AGED 43 YEARS

¶8

S/O. KUMARAN, KUNNATHPOYIL HOUSE, VILLIYAPALLY P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2 AMBIKA SUNIL, AGED 45 YEARS W/O. SUNIL, THOMMITHAZHE HOUSE, SANTHI GRAMAM, CHIRAKADAVU, PONKUNNAM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY, PIN-683104, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

2 THE CONVENER, LOCAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL LTD., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682016.

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686507.

¶15

SMT.VINITHA.B, GP SRI.R.S.KALKURA,SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.3716 OF 2021(L)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 15th day of February 2021

¶21

The 1^st petitioner is a kidney patient

¶22

undergoing treatment in Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, for both his kidneys and he is advised

¶23

to have transplantation of kidney. It is stated

¶24

that since the kidneys of the close relatives of

¶25

the 1^st petitioner are not available for

¶26

transplantation, the 2^nd petitioner has come forward to donate her kidney.

¶27

The petitioners submitted that though they

¶28

have submitted Exts.P9 and P10 applications along with all the documents before the 2^nd respondent, the same is not forwarded.

¶29

The learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent,

¶30

Sri.R.S. Kalkura, submits that the petitioners have

¶31

not submitted their applications along with the documents.

¶32

¶33

WP(C).No.3716 OF 2021(L)

¶34

petitioners submitted that all the documents would be submitted within two days.

¶35

unrelated donors is governed by Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act,

¶36

1994('the Act, 1994') and Rule 7(3) of the

¶37

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules 2014('the Rules 2014'). The 1^st respondent is the

¶38

authority constituted for examining the application for transplantation of kidney, in such

¶39

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

¶40

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of

¶41

with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to forward

¶42

Exts.P9 and P10 applications along with all the documents to the 1^st respondent, as soon as it is received without waiting for the report of the 3^rd

¶43

respondent, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of

¶44

WP(C).No.3716 OF 2021(L)

¶45

Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 as well as Rule 7(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues 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.

¶46

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶47

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C).No.3716 OF 2021(L)

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1	THE BY K	TRUE COPY OF ANJIRAPPALLY	THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED MLA DATED 3.1.2021.
EXHIBIT P2	THE BY T PANC	TRUE COPY OF HE PRESIDENT HAYATH DATED	THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED OF VILLIYAPALLY GRAMA 20.1.2021.
EXHIBIT P3	THE CERT DATE	TRUE COPY OF IFICATE OF T D 31.12.2020	THE IDENTIFICATION HE DONOR AND HER HUSBAND .
EXHIBIT P4	THE CERT DATE	TRUE COPY OF IFICATE OF T D 31.12.2020	THE IDENTIFICATION HE DONOR AND HER SON .
EXHIBIT P5	THE THE	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONERS	THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF DATED 9.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P6	THE THE	TRUE COPY OF DONOR DATED	THE CONSENT LETTER OF 9.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P7	THE THE	TRUE COPY OF HUSBAND OF T	THE CONSENT LETTER OF HE DONOR DATED 9.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P8	THE THE	TRUE COPY OF SON OF THE D	THE CONSENT LETTER OF ONOR DATED 9.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P9	THE SUBM 9.2.	TRUE COPY OF ITTED BY THE 2021.	FORM II APPLICATION PETITIONERS DATED
EXHIBIT P10	THE SUBM 9.2.	TRUE COPY OF ITTED BY THE 2021.	FORM 3 APPLICATION PETITIONERS DATED

¶54

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

PA TO JUDGE

Rajeevan, v. the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeevan, v. the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

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

Ojasvis Construction Solutions Vs the State of Kerala

Ojasvis Construction Solutions Vs the State of Kerala

Pentalegacy Private Limited Vs Vijayan.a.K

Sangrose Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Anjana P.v., Vs State of Kerala

Sultan Thomas Oommen Vs Election Commission of India