Kerala High Court
Biju Mathew vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 23 August, 2023
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 27178 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 BIJU MATHEWAGED 57 YEARSS/O MATHEW, NIRAYANNOOR
HOUSE, GLASS FACTORY ROAD, KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 683104
2 SURESH K.GAGED 49 YEARSS/O GANESHAN, KOOLIYEDATH
HOUSE, ERIYAD P.O., AZHIKODE, THRISSUR, PIN -
680666
BY ADV N.A.SHAFEEK
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEKODUNGALLUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680669
2 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS,ERNAKULAM,
ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY, ,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN., PIN - 683104
3 THE ZONAL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANSLAKESHORE HOSPITAL
& RESEARCH CENTRE, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682040
4 VPS LAKESHORE HOSPITAL (GLOBAL LIFECARE) LAKESHORE
HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,MARADU, NETTOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, . REP. BY ITS CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER.,
PIN - 682040
5 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, NEAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER D
TINA ALEX THOMAS(K/000532/2004)
HARIMOHAN(K/000327/2018)
KOCHURANI JAMES(K/003502/2022)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27178/2023
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27178 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
If the thinking of human beings is not to live forever, but to help another live a little longer, the god and our fellow citizens will bless us. That should be the slogan for encouraging human organ donation. The 1st petitioner is suffering from advanced chronic kidney disease. He is undergoing treatment at VPS Lakeshore Hospital, Nettoor, Maradu. The doctors advised urgent renal transplantation of the 1st petitioner, otherwise his life could not be saved. The 2nd petitioner, who is a family friend and a well-wisher of the 1st petitioner, has come forward to donate his kidney to save the life of the 1st petitioner out of his free will, affection and attachment towards the 1st petitioner and his family, is the submission.
2. The Hospital authorities demanded a police verification certificate from the 1 st respondent, even after the WP(C).No.27178/2023 3 submission of application. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court and this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment directed the 2nd respondent to consider the application without insisting on police verification report. But, now the 2nd respondent rejected the application by Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order is passed relying mainly upon the police verification report. The wife of the 1 st petitioner submitted an application before the 5 th respondent, Kerala Legal Service Authority, by highlighting the grievance that the 1 st respondent has not conducted any enquiry and submitted a negative report. Ext.P6 is the application.
3. On receipt of Ext.P6 application, the 5 th respondent conducted an enquiry and prepared a report. According to the petitioners, the same is in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
5. Normally this Court will not entertain this writ WP(C).No.27178/2023 4 petition because the petitioners have got a remedy against Ext.P4 by filing an appeal. But, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the condition of the 1st petitioner is very serious and if an appeal is filed, the same will delay the process and the life of the 1st petitioner is now in danger. It is true that there is an alternative remedy against Ext.P4 to the petitioners. But when life and death situation is in front of the 1st petitioner, this Court cannot shut its eyes and direct the petitioners to invoke the appellate remedy. Therefore, this Court decided to consider the grievance of the petitioners against Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the 2 nd respondent. The reason for rejecting the order is stated separately in Ext.P4. It will be better to extract the same:
"The case of Biju Mathew (Recipient) and Suresh K.G (Donor) was considered by the District Authorization Committee on 22.07.2023 on the basis of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) 16925/2023 dated 29.05.2023.
On interaction, the Committee felt the necessity for obtaining the Police verification. report of the donor and the same was sought for from the Department Superintendent of Police Kodugaloor.
WP(C).No.27178/20235
The Office received Police Verification Certificate No.232/GL/KSD/2023 dated 27.07.2023 Which reads as follows:-
On verification it is revealed that Sri. Suresh age 49 S/o Ganeshan Kooliyedath House, Eriyad, Azhikode has not been involved in any criminal cases in Kodungallur sub division Police Stations. As per the enquiry report, which is submitted by Station House Officer Kodungallur, the donor Suresh has no specific relationship/friendship to the patient Biju Mathew. Considering the where abouts of the donor the enquiry officer is having the opinion that the organ transplantation is only based on financial interest. Hence the members of the Committee unanimously decide to reject the application."
6. This Court directed the 5th respondent to produce the report prepared based on Ext.P6 representation of the wife of the 1st petitioner. The counsel for the 5 th respondent made available the report of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). It will be better to extract the contents of the report submitted by the Secretary, DLSA, Ernakulam:
"Report submitted by Renjith Krishnan N.. Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Ernakulam:-
In obedience to the reference cited above I WP(C).No.27178/2023 6 conducted an enquiry in the above matter. As part of the enquiry the statements of Sri.Suresh S/o Ganesan the donor (hereinafter called as donor), Sri.Binu Mathew who is the brother of the patient to whom transplantation of renal is required and Smt.Sumam Biju Mathew W/o Biju Mathew who is the patient. Sri.Suresh has given a statement to the effect that he is a carpenter and had been working in the firm of Binu Mathew named BM Associates in Kalamassery. He worked there for almost 5 years. Now also he used to work in the firm of Sri Binu Mathew as and when called. Due to that relationship he decided to donate one of his renal to his brother. The decision to donate renal was taken voluntarily after consulting with his family members and there is no money transaction involved behind his decision. Sri.Binu Mathew the brother of the patient also gave statement to the effect that the donor had been working in his firm named BM Associates for 5 years and even now he used to call the donor in case of urgency. The donor decided to donate one renal to his brother on account of that acquaintance and love towards his family and there is no element of money involved behind the decision of the donor. Smt.Sumam Biju Mathew gave statement to the effect that her husband has been undergoing dialysis for renal disease and renal transplantation is essential for saving his life. The proposed donor Suresh was an employee in the firm run by Sri.Binu Mathew who is the brother of her husband and in that way Suresh has very close family relationship with her family. Due to that relationship Suresh has voluntarily came forward to donate one of his renal and there is no money transaction behind the same.WP(C).No.27178/2023 7
As per Section 9(2) of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 where any donor authorizes the removal of any of his human organs after his death under sub- section(2) of section 3 or any person competent or empowered to give authority for the removal of any human organ from the body of any deceased person authorizes such removal, the human organ may be removed and transplanted into the body of any recipient who may be in need of such human organ. So the main aspect that has to be considered is regarding the genuiness of the donor. As per the statements of the donor, the brother and wife of the patient it is seen that the donor is a close family friend of the donee's family and the said fact lead to the offer being made by the donor. Ongoing through their statements, there are no contradictions in their statements. They have given consistent statements with regard to the relationship between the donor and the donee. Although no documents were produced to show the employer and employee relationship between the donor and the brother of the donee, primafacie there is nothing to doubt the correctness of the claim of the parties that they are close family friends. The donor has also filed an affidavit declaring the relationship with the donee as spoken to by him in the statement given to me. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that the donor has voluntarily agreed to donate his renal without any external influence and there is no money transaction involved relating to that."
7. A perusal of Ext.P4 order would show that the WP(C).No.27178/2023 8 2nd respondent relied mainly on the police verification certificate bearing No.232/GL/KSD/2023 dated 27.07.2023. This Court directed the Government Pleader to produce the police verification report. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodungallur submitted a report to the 2 nd respondent, which is extracted hereunder:
"From Salish N S Deputy Sudt of Police Kodungallur Sub division To The Chairman District Level Organ transplantation authorization Committee Govt. Medical college Ernakulam Sir, Sub: Police verification report in respect of Sri.Suresh.K.G submission- regarding Ref: CA/410/2023/GMCE dtd 25.07.23 Kind attention is being invited to the reference cited above.
Letter received from your good office seeking police verification of Sri. Suresh K.G., S/o Ganeshan, Kooliyedath House, Eriyad, Azhekode village for donating organ to Sri. WP(C).No.27178/2023 9 Biju Mathew age 57 s/o Mathew, Nirayannoor House, Glass Factory road, Kalamassery.
On verification, it is revealed that Sri. Suresh age 49 S/o Ganeshan, Kooliyedath House, Eriyad, Azhikode has not been involved in any criminal cases in Kodungallur sub division police stations. As per the enquiry report which is submitted by station house officer Kodungallur, the donour Suresh has no specific relationship/friendship to the patient Biju Mathew. Considering the where abouts of the donor the enquiry officer is having the opinion that the organ transplantation is only based on financial interest."
8. In the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodungallur, a report submitted by the Inspector Station House Officer, Kodungallur Police Station is also relied. The Government Pleader made available that report also. It will be better to extract that report also:
"പപപ്രേഷകൻ ക സ്എസസസ്എചസസ്ഓസ് ഇൻസസസ്പപ്രേകർ പകകൊടടുങ്ങലല്ലൂർസ്പപ്രേകൊലലീസസസ്പസ്റ്റേഷൻ തതൃശല്ലൂർസ്റല്ലൂറൽ സസലീകർതകൊവസ പഡെപ്രേപല്ലൂടട്ടിസ്പപ്രേകൊലലീസസസ്സല്ലൂപപ്രേണസ പകകൊടടുങ്ങലല്ലൂർസ് സർ, WP(C).No.27178/2023 10 വട്ടിഷയയ: പശലീസ് സടുപരേഷസസ് ട/o ഗപണേശൻസ് കല്ലൂളട്ടിപയടതസസ് വലീടസ എറട്ടിയകൊടസസ് KVHS പദേശയസ് എറട്ടിയകൊടസസ് വട്ടിപലജസസ് എന്നയകൊൾസ് നലട്ടില യ അപപ്രേക്ഷയട്ടിപന്മേൽസ്റട്ടിപപകൊർടസസ്സമർപണേയ. സല്ലൂചന-No.158/GL/KSD/2023 പമൽസ്സല്ലൂചനസ്പപ്രേകകൊരേയസ്പശലീസ്സടുപരേഷസസ് S/o ഗപണേശൻസ്കല്ലൂളട്ടിപയടതസ വലീടസസ് എറട്ടിയകൊടസസ് സ്KVHS പദേശയസ് എറട്ടിയകൊടസസ് വട്ടിപലജസസ് എന്നയകൊൾസ് നലട്ടില യ അപപ്രേക്ഷസ് പകകൊടടുങ്ങലല്ലൂർസ് പപ്രേകൊലലീസസസ് ലഭട്ടിചട്ടിടടുള്ളതടുയസ് ആയതസ No.41/GL/M2/2023 ആയട്ടിസ്പരേഖപപടടുതട്ടിയട്ടിടടുള്ളതകൊണേസസ്.
പമൽസ് കകൊരേപതട്ടിൽസ് അപനസഷണേയസ് നടതട്ടിയട്ടിടടുള്ളതടുയ അപപ്രേക്ഷകൻസ്പശലീസ്സടുപരേഷസസ്ട/o ഗപണേശൻസ് കല്ലൂളട്ടിപയടതസസ് വലീടസ എറട്ടിയകൊടസസ്KVHS പദേശയസ്എറട്ടിയകൊടസസ്വട്ടിപലജസസ്എന്നവപരേസ്കണസസ് പമകൊഴട്ടി പരേഖപപടടുതട്ടിയതട്ടിൽസ് തനട്ടികസസ് എറണേകൊകടുളയസ് ഷട്ടിപട്ടിയകൊഡെട്ടിൽ രേണടു വർഷസ് കകൊലമകൊയട്ടിസ് തകൊൽകകൊലട്ടികസ് പജകൊലട്ടിയകൊപണേന്നടുയ കളമപശരേട്ടിയട്ടിലടുള്ളസ് ബട്ടിജടുസ് മകൊതപടുസ് എന്നവർകസസ് വതൃകസ് ദേകൊനയ പചയടുന്നതട്ടിനടുള്ളസ് അപപ്രേക്ഷസ് പകകൊടടുതട്ടിടടുള്ളതകൊപണേന്നടുയ ബട്ടിജടുവട്ടിപനസ് രേണടുസ് വർഷസ് കകൊലമകൊയട്ടിസ് അറട്ടിയകൊപമന്നടുയസ് അവരേടുപട ഫർണേട്ടിചർസ് പഷകൊപട്ടിൽസ് കടുറചസസ് ദേട്ടിവസയസ് പജകൊലട്ടിസ് പചയയട്ടിരേടുന്നടുപവന്നടുയ ബട്ടിജടുസ് മകൊതപടുസ് എറണേകൊകടുളയസ് പലകസസ് പഷകൊർസ് പഹകൊസട്ടിസ റ്റലട്ടിൽ ചട്ടികട്ടിത്സയട്ടിലകൊപണേന്നടുയസ് ഡ കട്ടിഡട്ടിസ് ദേകൊനയസ് പചയടുന്നതട്ടിനടുള്ള പടസ്റ്റേടുകപളകൊപകസ് എറണേകൊകടുളയസ് പലകസസ് പഷകൊർസ് പഹകൊസട്ടിസ റ്റലട്ടിൽ കഴട്ടിഞടുപവന്നടുയസ് തകൊൻസ് കട്ടിഡട്ടിസ് ഡ ദേകൊനയസ് പചയടുന്നതട്ടിൽസ് ഭകൊരേപകടുയ മകൾകടുയസ് അചനടുയസ് അമ്മയസകടുയസ് യകൊപതകൊരേടുസ് എതട്ടിർപടുയസ് ഇപലന്നടുയ ത നന്റെ ഡ ദേകൊനയ പപ്രേരേട്ടിൽസ് പകട്ടിമട്ടിനൽസ് പകസടുകപളകൊന്നടുമട്ടിപലന്നടുയസ് കട്ടിഡട്ടിസ് പചയടുന്നതട്ടിൽസ് ബട്ടിജടുസ് മകൊതപടുസ് നട്ടിന്നസസ് പ്രേണേമകൊപയകൊസ് മപറ്റകൊ പ്രേകൊരേട്ടിപതകൊഷട്ടികങ്ങപളകൊസ് വകൊങ്ങടുന്നട്ടിപലന്നടുയസ് വതൃകസ് ദേകൊനയസ് പചയയകൊലടുള്ള പദേകൊഷസ് ഫലങ്ങപളസ് കടുറട്ടിചസസ് അറട്ടിയകൊപമന്നടുയസ് മറ്റടുയസ് പമകൊഴട്ടി പ്രേറഞട്ടിടടുള്ളതകൊണേസ.
ഈസ് കകൊരേപതട്ടിൽസ് അപപ്രേക്ഷക നന്റെ ഭകൊരേപസ് സടുജട്ടി, മകൾസ് പരേഷ ഷ എന്നട്ടിവപരേകൊടടുയസ് മറ്റടുയസ് പചകൊദേട്ടിചതട്ടിൽസ് അപപ്രേക്ഷകൻസ് സടുപരേഷട്ടിനന്റെ പമകൊഴട്ടികനടുസതൃതമകൊയട്ടിസ്മറ്റടുയസ്പമകൊഴട്ടിസ്പ്രേറഞട്ടിടടുള്ളതകൊണേസ പമൽസ് സല്ലൂചനസ് പപ്രേകകൊരേമടുള്ളസ് ഉതരേവനടുസരേട്ടിചസസ് ഞകൊൻസ് ഈ അപപ്രേക്ഷയട്ടിൽസ് വട്ടിശദേമകൊയട്ടിസ് സ്ഥലതടുയസ് പ്രേരേട്ടിസരേതടുയസ് അപനസഷണേയ നടതട്ടിയട്ടിടടുള്ളയകൊണേസ'. ആയതട്ടിൽസ് അടടുതസ് സമയങ്ങളട്ടിൽസ് ഈ പപ്രേപദേശതടുസ് വതൃകസ് കരേൾസ് ദേകൊനയസ് പചയയസസ് മല്ലൂന്നടുസ് പകസടുകളട്ടിലകൊയട്ടി WP(C).No.27178/2023 11 വട്ടിവകൊദേയസ്ഉണകൊകടുകയടുയസ് ആയതസസ് ഇപപകൊൾസ് കപകയസ് പബകൊഞട്ടി നന്റെ അപനസഷണേസ് പ്രേരേട്ടിധട്ടിയട്ടിൽസ് ആയതട്ടിനകൊലടുയസ് ഞകൊൻസ് നടതട്ടിയട്ടിടടുള്ള അപനസഷണേതട്ടിൽസ് ഇതട്ടിപലസ് വതൃകസ്ദേകൊനയസ്പചയകൊപമന്നസസ് പ്രേറഞട്ടിടടുള്ള സടുപരേഷസസ് എന്നവർകസസ് വതൃകസ് സസലീകരേട്ടികടുന്നസ് ബട്ടിജടുസ് മകൊതപടു എന്നവരേടുമകൊയട്ടിസ് പ്രേറയതകസ് തരേതട്ടിലടുള്ളസ് യകൊപതകൊരേടുസ് ബന്ധവടുയ ഇപലന്നടുയസ് കല്ലൂടകൊപതസ് സടുപരേഷസസ് എന്നവർസ് ഉപ്രേപയകൊഗട്ടിചസസ് വരേടുന്ന 8848838657 എന്നസ് നമ്പറട്ടി നന്റെ ജട്ടിലകൊസ് കസബർസ് പസലട്ടിൽസ് നട്ടിന്നടുയ അയചടുസ് കട്ടിടട്ടിയസ് കകൊൾസ് ഡെട്ടിപറ്റയട്ടിൽസസസ് പ്രേരേട്ടിപശകൊധട്ടിചതട്ടിൽസ് മറ്റടുയ മനസട്ടിലകൊകകൊവടുന്നതകൊണേസ. അൽപ്രേസ് വരേടുമകൊനകകൊരേകൊയസ് സടുപരേഷട്ടിനടുയ കടുടടുയബതട്ടിനടുയസ് ധകൊരേകൊളയസ് കടബകൊദപതയടുപണന്നടുയസ് ആയതസ വലീടടുന്നതട്ടിനന്റെ സ് ഭകൊഗമകൊയകൊണേസസ് സ് ഈസ് ഇടപ്രേകൊപടന്നടുയസ് നപകൊയമകൊയട്ടി സയശയട്ടികകൊവടുന്നസ് നനിലയനിലലാണണ സ് ആയതട്ടിനകൊൽസ് സദേടുപദ്ദേശപ്രേരേമകൊയ തരേതട്ടിലടുള്ളസ് ഒരേടുസ് ഇടപ്രേകൊടലസ് നടന്നട്ടിടടുള്ളപതന്നടുസ് പകകൊണടുയസ് ഈ തരേതട്ടിൽസ് രേണടുസ് മല്ലൂന്നസസ് സയഭവങ്ങൾസ് സ്ഥലതടുസ് മടുൻപപ്രേസ് റട്ടിപപകൊർടസ പചയയസസ് ആയതസസ് അപനസഷണേസ് ഏജൻസട്ടിയടുപടസ് അപനസഷണേ പ്രേരേട്ടിധട്ടിയകൊയതടുസ് പകകൊണടുയസ് ഈസ് വപകട്ടികൾസ് തമ്മട്ടിലടുള്ളസ് വതൃകസ് ദേകൊനയ നടതടുന്നതസസ് ശരേട്ടിയകൊയസ് നടപ്രേടട്ടിയപലന്നസ് കകൊരേപയസ് അങ്ങയടുപട അറട്ടിവട്ടിപലകസസ്പബകൊധട്ടിപട്ടിചടുസ്പകകൊള്ളടുന്നടു.
അനന്തരേസ് നടപ്രേടട്ടികൾകകൊയട്ടിസ് അസൽസ് അപപ്രേക്ഷയടുയ അപപ്രേക്ഷകൻസ് സടുപരേഷസ, സടുപരേഷട്ടി നന്റെ ഭകൊരേപസ് സടുജട്ടിസ് മകൾസ് പരേഷ ഷ എന്നട്ടിവരേടുപടസ്പമകൊഴട്ടികൾസ്ഇപതകൊപടകൊപയസ്സമർപട്ടിചസസ്പകകൊള്ളടുന്നടു"
സവട്ടിനയയ ക സ്എസസസ്എചസസ്ഓ ഇൻസസസ്പപ്രേകർ പകകൊടടുങ്ങലല്ലൂർസ്പപ്രേകൊലലീസസസ്പസ്റ്റേഷൻസ്സ് തതൃശല്ലൂർസ്റല്ലൂറൽ"
9. A perusal of the report prepared by the 5 th respondent would show that as per the statement of the donor, brother and wife of the patient the donor is a close family friend of the donee's family and the said fact lead to the offer being made by the donor. It is also stated by the WP(C).No.27178/2023 12 Secretary, DLSA, Ernakulam that on going through their statements, there are no contradictions in their statements and they have given consistent statements with regard to the relationship between the donor and the donee. Although no documents were produced to show the employer-employee relationship between the donor and the brother of the donee, the report of the Secretary, DLSA, states that prima facie there is nothing to doubt the correctness of the claim of the parties that they are close family friends. The donor has also filed an affidavit declaring the relationship with the donee as spoken to by him in the statement given before the Secretary, DLSA. Hence the Secretary, DLSA, came to the conclusion that the donor has voluntarily agreed to donate his renal without any external influence and there is no monetary transaction relating to it. In the light of the above report of the Secretary, DLSA, I am of the considered opinion that the police verification report of the Deputy Superintendent, Kodungallur and the report of the Inspector SHO, Kodungallur need not be considered by the 2nd respondent. In the report of the Inspector SHO, Kodungallur Police Station, it is stated WP(C).No.27178/2023 13 that in the call details forwarded from the District Cyber Cell, it can be seen that there is no close relationship between the petitioners and there is serious doubt about commercial transaction in this case. The SHO, Kodungallur submitted such a report without only based on the call details. Nothing is clear from the report of the Inspector, SHO, Kodungallur and on the other hand, the report of the 5th respondent is clear to the effect that there is no external influence and there is no money transaction involved relating to that. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent, Kodungallur and the report of the SHO, Kodungallur are to be rejected and the 2 nd respondent has to pass orders based on the report of the 5th respondent.
10. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to make certain observations. While considering an application submitted by the parties for permission for transplantation, the Authorization Committee's duty is divine. The Authorization Committee must hold an enquiry independently. The committee should satisfy itself that the applicants have complied with all the requirements of the Transplantation of WP(C).No.27178/2023 14 Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. If that subjective satisfaction is arrived, the Authorization Committee has to grant approval for the removal and transplantation of the human organs. The Government issued certain guidelines for altruistic and exchange donation based on the directions of this Court as G.O.(Ms.) No.26/2018/H&FWD dated 15.02.2018. As far as an unrelated organ donor is concerned, approval from the Authorisation Committee is mandatory. The concern of commercialization of organ donation can be reduced by removing the direct link between the person who offers to donate and the recipient. Further, Rule 17 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 deals with scrutiny of applications by Authorisation Committee. Rule 17 is extracted below:
"17. Scrutiny of applications by Authorisation Committee.--
(1) Secretariat of the Authorisation Committee shall circulate copies of all applications received from the proposed donors and recipients to all members of the Committee along with all annexures, which may have been filed along with the applications.WP(C).No.27178/2023 15
(2) At the time of the meeting, the Authorisation Committee should take note of all relevant contents and documents in the course of its decision making process and in the event any document or information is found to be inadequate or doubtful, explanation should be sought from the applicant and if it is considered necessary that any fact or information requires to be verified in order to confirm its veracity or correctness, the same be ascertained through the concerned officer(s) of the State Government or Union territory Administration."(underline supplied) Police verification is conducted only to rule out that, there is no commercialization of the organ donation and transplantation. When Police submits verification reports, mere mechanical orders shall not be passed by the authorisation committe. A man is in the death bed. He is hoping that he will get a life from another person. The Authorization Committee and Police shall always try to help the man in the death bed rather than to find out some technicalities and unsupported suspicions to conclude that there is commercial transaction or money transaction. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which WP(C).No.27178/2023 16 Ext.P4 is to be set aside and the 2nd respondent has to pass consequential order in the light of the directions issued by this Court.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P4 is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass consequential orders granting authorization for renal transplantation, based on the application submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
WP(C).No.27178/2023
17
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27178/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION
NO.16925/2023
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.05.2023 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
NO.16925/2023
Exhibit-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
DATED 22.07.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE WIFE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED
08.08.2023 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT