Disposed

Siju P. R. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2022WP(C)/372/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in processing a joint application for living donor liver transplantation by the Local Level Committee due to inaction regarding police verification. Court directed submission of requisite documents and finalized processing timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit documents; Committee to process and forward application within two days; Zonal Committee to decide within three weeks.

Siju P. R. Vs the State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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

¶5

WP(C) NO. 372 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIJU P.R., AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. SURESH K.S., KOTTIYATTIL HOUSE, PUZHUVIL, KURUMPILAVU P.O., KURUMPILAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 564.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE ZONAL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL ZONE, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KALAMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 104. 3 THE LOCAL LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR RENAL TRANSPLANTATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MEDICAL DIRECTOR, VPS LAKESHORE HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEDICAL DIRECTOR, XVI/612, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682040. BY ADVS. P.BENNY THOMAS D.PREM KAMATH TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) ABEL TOM BENNY

¶12

WP(C).No.372/2022

¶13

¶14

JYOTHISH KRISHNA KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH SRUTHY J. MAMPILLY JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI SRI. R.S.KALKURA, APPEARS FOR R3 SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

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

¶16

WP(C).No.372/2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2022

¶20

The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of 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.

¶21

The petitioner states that she voluntarily agreed to donate a portion of her liver to a minor girl child who is a chronic liver patient. They submitted a joint application 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-Zonal Authorisation

¶22

WP(C).No.372/2022

¶23

¶24

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 by the 3^rd respondent 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.

¶25

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 necessary for processing the application. A list of documents 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

¶26

WP(C).No.372/2022

¶27

¶28

forward it to the 2^nd respondent within two days, submitted the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶29

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

¶30

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No.372/2022

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 372/2022

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION IN FORM - 3 OF THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND TISSUES RULES, 2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL. Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF TRANSPLANTATION FROM LIVING DONOR UNDER FORM 11 OF THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND TISSUES RULES, 2014 DATED 13.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, THRISSUR CONSTITUENCY. Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE MEMBER OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, WANDOOR CONSTITUENCY.

Siju P. R. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siju P. R. v. the State of Kerala

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

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

Sabeena .S Vs State of Kerala

Juliet E J Vs State of Kerala

The Chairman, Vs the State of Kerala