Disposed

Ashtami Reghunath v. the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

Kerala HC11 Feb 2022WP(C)/4229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought direction for approval of unrelated kidney transplant. Court directed Local Committee to forward Form II and III applications along with supporting documents to the District Authorization Committee for consideration and disposal within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to forward Form II and III applications with supporting documents to the 1st respondent for consideration and orders within three weeks.

Ashtami Reghunath Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 22ND MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4229 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ASHTAMI REGHUNATH AGED 35 YEARS SON OF REGHUNANDHA PILLAI, PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, THALAVOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691508

¶8

2 NOUSHAJA P.B AGED 42 YEARS W/O. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, CHERAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK THRISSUR, PIN – 679562

¶9

BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE CONVENER LOCAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION LAKESHORE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LIMITED, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682040

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KUNNAMKULAM, KUNNAMKULAMP.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680523

¶14

W.P.(C) No.4229/2022

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

BY ADVS. P.BENNY THOMAS D.PREM KAMATH TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) ABEL TOM BENNY JYOTHISH KRISHNA KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH SRUTHY J. MAMPILLY JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI SRI.APPU P S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.4229/2022

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.4229 of 2022

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2022

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶27

relief:-

¶28

“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 Exts.P8 and P9 applications, within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

¶30

learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1

¶31

and 3 and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶33

petitioners that though an application had been preferred

¶34

W.P.(C) No.4229/2022

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

before the 2^nd respondent for effecting an unrelated kidney 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 petitioners that the verification by the 3^rd respondent is not a condition precedent for forwarding of the application and the 1^st respondent, who is the Authority under the enactment, can call for reports from the 3^rd respondent, if required.

¶37

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

¶38

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit all supporting documents to the 2^nd respondent. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to forward Exts.P8 and P9 applications along with supporting documents to the 1^st respondent for consideration, at the earliest. The 1^st

¶39

W.P.(C) No.4229/2022

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

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.

¶42

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/14.02.2022

W.P.(C) No.4229/2022

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4229/2022

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit -P1	THE TRUE	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
	ISSUED BY 28.1.2022	SRI.N.K.AKBAR, MLA DATED
Exhibit -P2	THE TRUE	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
	ISSUED BY DATED 8.1.20	SRI.K.B.GANESH KUMAR, MLA 22
Exhibit -P3	THE TRUE	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
	ISSUED BY 7.1.2022	KOTTARAKKARA DY.S.P. DATED
Exhibit -P4	THE TRUE C CERTIFICATE HER HUSBAND	OPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND DATED 29.1.2022
Exhibit -P5	THE TRUE C	OPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION
	CERTIFICATE COUSIN DATED	OF THE DONOR AND HER 29.1.2022
Exhibit -P6	THE TRUE CO PETITIONERS	PY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DATED 10.1.2022
Exhibit -P7	THE TRUE CO	PY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF
	THE DONOR 7.2.2022	AND HER RELATIVES DATED
Exhibit -P8	THE TRUE	COPY OF THE FORM II
	APPLICATION 7.2.2022	OF THE PETITIONERS DATED
Exhibit -P9	THE TRUE	COPY OF THE FORM 3
	APPLICATION 7.2.2022	OF THE PETITIONERS DATED

Ashtami Reghunath v. the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashtami Reghunath 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

Suresh Kumar G.S Vs State of Kerala

Benny Mathew Vs Executive Engineer

Anand Vinayak Vs State of Kerala

Sibi N.K Vs Superintending Engineer

Sureshkumar Anandavallyamma Ravindran Nair, Vs Union of India

Gopikrishnan T Vs Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.