Disposed

Sabeena .S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2022WP(C)/294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged delay in kidney donation application due to request for police report by Local Level Committee. Court directed committee to process and forward application immediately upon receipt of documents, allowing District Level Committee to obtain police records separately.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to process and forward application within two days of document receipt; 2nd respondent to decide within three weeks; 3rd respondent prohibited from withholding processing solel

Sabeena .S Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 294 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SABEENA .S, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. RASHEED .K., RESIDING AT VAYALIL THARAYIL HOUSE, KAATTILKADAVU P.O., AADHINADU SOUTH, AADHINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 542

¶7

BY ADVS. K.V.JAYADEEP MENON T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL) P.KRISHNAPRIYA JINS.P.JOHN AKSHAY SHAJI T.S

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR RENAL TRANSPLANTATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KALAMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 014

¶11

3 THE LOCAL LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR RENAL TRANSPLANTATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ MEDICAL DIRECTOR, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEDICAL DIRECTOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682 016

¶12

R3 BY ADV R.S.KALKURA SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.294/2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2022

¶18

The petitioner challenges the non-consideration of

¶19

the joint application submitted by the petitioner along with the patient/recipient for organ transplantation due to the inaction of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner seeks to declare that the 3^rd respondent has no authority to call for a police verification report in an application submitted before the 2^nd respondent through the 3^rd respondent as per Rule 10 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014.

¶20

The petitioner states that she voluntarily agreed to donate her kidney to a Chronic Kidney patient named Mr.Sabeer Poozhikuth, aged 45 years. The petitioner along with said Mr. Sabeer Poozhikuth submitted a joint application

¶21

WP(C).No.294/2022

¶22

¶23

under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act. The 3^rd respondent, however, without processing the application and forwarding it to the 2^nd respondent-District Level Authorising Committee, has sought for a police report. The petitioner would submit that the police officials may take considerable time in issuing a report and the 3^rd respondent can very well forward the available documents to the 2^nd respondent for further processing. The 2^nd respondent is competent to call for police records, if it is necessary, from the competent authorities. The non-processing of the application and forwarding the same to the 2^nd respondent is likely to put the life of a 3^rd person into trouble. Therefore, the writ petitioner seeks appropriate directions from this Court.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that when the petitioner submitted application for organ transplantation, the petitioner was required to submit certain documents which are extremely necessary for processing the application. A list of documents

¶25

WP(C).No.294/2022

¶26

¶27

required was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced requisite documents. If the petitioner produces all the requisite documents, the 3^rd respondent will process the same and forward it to the 2^nd respondent within two days, submitted the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶28

In view of the submission made on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit all requisite documents to the 3^rd respondent immediately. The 3^rd respondent shall process the application and forward the same to the 2^nd respondent within a period of two days from the date of receipt of necessary documents. It is made clear that the 3^rd respondent shall not withhold the processing and forwarding of the application for the sole reason that a police report is not obtained. It is further directed that the 2^nd respondent shall process the application on receipt of the same from the 3^rd respondent and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of three weeks. The 2^nd respondent will be at liberty to call for police records

¶29

WP(C).No.294/2022

¶30

¶31

from the competent police authorities, if it is found necessary.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No.294/2022

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 294/2022

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

Exhibit P1	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF	THE J	OINT
	APPLICATION IN FORM-3 TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN	OF ORGANS	THE AND
	TISSUES RULES, 2014, DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT.	15.12. TO THE	2021 3RD
Exhibit P2	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPL THE APPROVAL OF TRANSPLANT	ICATION ATION	FOR FROM
	LIVING DONOR UNDER FORM TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN TISSUES RULES, 2014 DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT.	11 OF ORGANS 26.11. TO THE	THE AND 2021 3RD
Exhibit P3	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOIN DATED 15.12.2021 SUBMITTE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPON	T AFFID D BY DENT.	AVIT THE
Exhibit P4	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DATED 01.01.2022 ISSUED BY OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, KAR CONSTITUENCY.	CERTIFI THE ME UNAGAPP	CATE MBER ALLY
Exhibit P5	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DATED 06.12.2021 ISSUED BY OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY.	CERTIFI THE ME , MAN	CATE MBER JERI

Sabeena .S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabeena .S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noushad M. Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

Sajeev P.D. Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organ

Kiran R. G. Vs the Station House Officer

Siju P. R. Vs the State of Kerala

Juliet E J Vs State of Kerala

The Chairman, Vs the State of Kerala