Allowed

Latheef V.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2024WP(C)/26364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside non-speaking rejection orders (Ext.P12 and Ext.P13) for an unrelated renal transplant application, finding the authorities failed to properly evaluate the patient's condition. The court directed the District Level Authorization Committee and the Principal Secretary to reconsider the application within two weeks on humanitarian grounds, taking into account additional docume

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 set aside; authorities directed to reconsider the unrelated renal transplantation application within two weeks on humanitarian grounds, considering Ext.P14 to P18 documents.

Latheef V.P Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1LATHEEF V.P
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. MAMU V.P., VAKKAYIL PAYKKAT HOUSE, ATTUPURAM,,
PUNNAYURKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679561
2BINDU M.U
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. ANIL KUMAR, ARYAPATHRAYIL MANDIRAM, RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689672

¶8

BY ADVS.
T.P.SAJID
K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI
SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN
SHIFA LATHEEF
MUHAMMED HAROON A.N.
HASHARURAHIMAN U.
MOHEMED FAVAS
MUHAMMED BILAL K.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001

¶11

2THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶12

3THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683104

¶13

SRI. SUNIL KURIAKOSE, GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2024

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by rejection of Ext.P8 application submitted by the petitioners for unrelated renal transplantation, by the respondents. The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P12 and 13 order passed by respondents 3 and 2 respectively.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner is a chronic kidney patient and the 2^nd petitioner is an unrelated donor who has come forward to donate her kidney to the 1^st petitioner. Though the application is preferred before the 3^rd respondent with all sufficient documents in the prescribed proforma, the same was rejected by the 3^rd respondent vide Ext.P12, on flimsy grounds. Further, though petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent against the rejection order of the 3^rd respondent, the same was also rejected vide Ext.P13. Both Exts.P12 and P13 orders are stated to be illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable. The present writ petition is filed challenging the same.

¶20

WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2024

¶21

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that no proper explanation has been given by the 1^st petitioner to prove his relation with the 2^nd petitioner.

¶22

I have gone through Exts.P12 & P13 orders. Ext.P12 appears to be a non speaking order whereas Ext.P13 states that in cases where the donor is a woman, greater precautions ought to be taken, and her identity and independent consent should be confirmed by a person other than the recipient and the Government have examined the matter in detail. As per the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, it is the duty of the District Level Authorization Committee to look into all aspects so as to prove whether there is altruism, when the proposed donor and the recipient are not near relatives. The District Level Authorization Committee has examined the case as per the protocol defined in the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, and rejected the application due to discrepancies in the oral statements of the near relatives of the donor, non-establishment of relationship

¶23

WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2024

¶24

-4-

¶25

between the donor and recipient and non submission of documents to prove the absence of commercial transaction. It is also stated that no new ground has been pointed out so as to reconsider the decision of the District Level Authorization Committee.

¶26

Having gone through Exts.P12 & P13 orders, it appears the both are non speaking orders. I feel that the condition of the patient was not properly evaluated by both the authorities. Going by the exhibits it appears that all formalities have been complied by the petitioner. By preferring an application in Form 3, it is specifically understood that Renal transplantation to be done on the basis of donation by other than near relative. In that respect, all the formalities appear to be complied by producing Exts.P3 and P4. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside Exts.P12 and P13 and direct the authorities to reconsider the issue at the earliest, taking into consideration, Exts.P14 to P18 documents produced along with this writ petition. Petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this writ petition before the competent authorities and the competent authorities are directed to consider the issue on

¶27

WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2024

¶28

humanitarian ground taking into account the condition of the patient and take an appropriate decision, within a period two weeks

¶29

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

P.M.MANOJ

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

24.07.2024

¶36

WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2024

¶37

-6-

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26364/2024

¶39

`PETITION` `Exhibit`	`ER EXHI` `P1`	`BITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE REP` `TRUST` `HOSPITAL,` `30/3/2024 RECEIVED BY`	`ORT OF THE MED` `ERNAKULAM` `D` `THE PETITIONER`	`ICAL` `ATED` `S`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF T`	`HE IDENTIFICA`	`TION`
		`CERTIFICATE OF T` `20/2/2024 ISSUED BY T`	`HE DONOR D` `HE VILLAGE OFFI`	`ATED` `CER`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF TH`	`E NON OBJEC`	`TION`
		`CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `DEPUTY SUPERINTENDEN` `16/2/2024 TO THE 2ND`	`THE OFFICE OF` `T OF POLICE D` `PETITIONER`	`THE` `ATED`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONERS DATED 02/`	`AFFIDAVIT OF` `02/2024`	`THE`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REP` `OFFICER,` `FAMILY` `ANDATHODE, DATED 30/0`	`ORT OF THE MED` `HEALTH` `CEN` `6/2023`	`ICAL` `TRE,`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 02/06/2014 OF` `1ST` `PETITIONER` `PUNNAYOORKULAM GRAMA`	`DEATH CERTIFI` `THE FATHER OF` `ISSUED` `BY` `PANCHAYATH`	`CATE` `THE` `THE`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 11/2/2021 OF` `1ST` `PETITIONER` `PUNNAYOORKULAM GRAMA`	`DEATH CERTIFI` `THE MOTHER OF` `ISSUED` `BY` `PANCHAYATH`	`CATE` `THE` `THE`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF FORM` `ORGAN OR TISSUE DONA` `NEAR RELATIVE LIVING` `THE PETITIONERS` `RESPONDENT DATED 02/0`	`3 APPLICATION` `TION BY OTHER` `DONOR SUBMITTE` `BEFORE THE` `2/2024`	`FOR` `THAN` `D BY` `3RD`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF FORM` `CERTIFICATION OF M` `LIVING DONOR, DATED 1`	`4 APPLICATION` `EDICAL FITNESS` `8/04/2024`	`OF` `OF`
`Exhibit` `Exhibit`	`P10` `P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE F` `FOR APPROVAL OF TR` `LIVING DONOR DATED 10` `TRUE COPY OF THE`	`ORM 11 APPLICA` `ANSPLANTATION` `/03/2024` `PHOTOGRAPH OF`	`TION` `FROM` `THE`

¶40

WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2024

¶41

PETITIONERS ALONG WITH FAMILY

¶42

Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS, DATED 05/06/2024
Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF APPEAL ORDER DATED
09/07/2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
16/07/2024 ISSUED BY THE NEPHROLOGIST,
MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P15TRUECOPYOFTHEPROVISIONAL
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
ISSUED IN THE NAME OF USMAN DATED
21/10/94

¶43

Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE KSEB METER CARD DATED
11/07/94 TO PROVE THAT 1ST PETITIONER'S
BROTHER USMAN IS USING THE KSEB
CONNECTION
Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
24/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT
PUNNAYURKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P18TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANIL KUMAR
Exhibit P19TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17/07/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT
ANNEXURES WITH POSTAL RECEIPT

Latheef V.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latheef V.P v. State of Kerala

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

M.P.Jayaprakash Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Kavalakkatt Sebastian Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Mariamma K.J Vs the Administrator, Pallithode Service Co-Operative Bank

Rifash Vs Union of India

Balagopal C.K. Vs Station House Officer

M.T Abdul Zubair, Vs the Kerala State Rural Roads Development Agency

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

M.P.Jayaprakash Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Kavalakkatt Sebastian Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Mariamma K.J Vs *the Administrator, Pallithode Service Co-Operative Bank*

Rifash Vs Union of India

Balagopal C.K. Vs Station House Officer

M.T Abdul Zubair, Vs the Kerala State Rural Roads Development Agency

Mariamma K.J Vs the Administrator, Pallithode Service Co-Operative Bank