Kerala High Court
Muhmmed Rasheed vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:19085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 MUHMMED RASHEED
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, THIRUNDIKKAL HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA
P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
679336
2 NISHA
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. LOHIDASAN,PADIYATH HOUSE, THOYAKAVU P.O.,
VENKIDANGU VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680513
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD
SRI.ISTINAF ABDULLAH
SMT.THASNEEM A.P.
SMT.DHILNA DILEEP
SMT.SURYA S.R.
SRI.ARSHID.M.S.
SRI.SUBRAHMANIAN T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:19085
3 THE CONVENER
STATE LEVEL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, FUNCTIONING UNDER
KERALA STATE ORGAN AND TISSUE TRANSPLANT
ORGANIZATION, 1ST FLOOR, OLD HOUSE SURGEON QUARTERS,
NEAR SUPER SPECIALITY BLOCK, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
4 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTE E FOR
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI,
PIN - 683503
BY SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:19085
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P21 order passed by the 4th respondent, rejecting the petitioners' joint application for permission for organ transplantation.
2. The 1st petitioner is suffering from liver cirrhosis. He has been advised to undergo liver transplantation to save his life. Since there is no suitable family member in the 1st petitioner's family to donate the liver, the 2nd petitioner has volunteered to donate a part of her liver for the transplantation. Consequently, the petitioners had submitted Ext.P10 joint application before the 4th respondent with all the supporting documents. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P1 Certificate of Altruism issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guruvayur ('ACP' in short). However, the 4 th respondent rejected the joint application by Ext.P12 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P12, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P13 appeal before the 2 nd WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:19085 respondent. But, the 2 nd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P15 order. The petitioners challenged Exts.P12 and P15 orders before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 439/2025. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 07.01.2025, this Court directed the ACP to file a statement regarding the enquiry he had conducted. Accordingly, the ACP filed Ext.P17 affidavit, inter alia, stating that the Station House Officer, Pavaratty Police Station had conducted an enquiry and found out the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner's husband are close friends. It was in the said background that the 2 nd petitioner volunteered to altruistically donate a part of her liver. She had also filed an affidavit to the said effect. By Ext.P20 judgment, this Court set aside Exts.P12 and P15 orders and directed the 4th respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after adverting to Ext.P1 Certificate of Altruism. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P20 judgment, by Ext.P21 order, the 4 th respondent has rejected the joint application. Ext.P21 is ex facie illegal and wrong. Hence, the writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 5
2025:KER:19085
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioners had submitted Ext.P10 joint application seeking permission for the 2nd petitioner to donate a part of her liver for the 1 st petitioner. By Ext.P12 order, the 4th respondent had rejected the joint application, which order was confirmed by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P15 order.
5. The petitioners had challenged the said order before this Court in W.P(C).No.439/2025. By Ext.P20 judgment, this Court, after perusing Ext.P1 certificate and the affidavit of the ACP allowed the writ petition by making the following observations.
"9. In compliance with the above order, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has filed an affidavit stating that he had directed the Station House Officer of Pavaratty Police Station, to conduct an enquiry and also the 2nd petitioner to file an affidavit before him stating that there was no commercial dealings with the 1st petitioner. It is on the basis of the said material that he has issued Ext.P1 certificate.
10. Recently, in Ismail Kunju (supra) case, this Court had categorically held that, going by the scheme of the Act, the authorization committee is to pragmatically interview that parties and video-graph the interview and also give reasons for allowing or declining an application for approval under Rule 7(3) of the Rules, 2014.
11. In the case on hand, after going through the affidavit filed by WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:19085 the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ext.P1 certificate of altruism, I am of the view that both the respondents 2 and 4 have failed to consider the impact of the said certificates in Exts.P12 and P15 orders. Hence, I am satisfied that the writ petition is to be allowed, by setting aside Exts.P12 and P15 orders and directing the 4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P10 joint application. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner;
1. Exts.P12 and P15 orders are set aside;
2. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P10 application and take a decision in the matter, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
3. The 4th respondent shall intimate the petitioners regarding the orders passed in Ext.P10 application.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly."
6. Subsequent to Ext.P20 judgment, the 4 th respondent reconsidered the matter and has passed Ext.P21 order in the following lines:
"Subsequent to the direction of the Honourable Court the Committee met with the Donor and the husband. It is submitted that this time the statements were more studied and prepared. It is submitted that at this interaction the husband who is the crucial link between the recipient and the donor changed his statement and stated that he knew the recipient only for the past three years. It is submitted that a person who has close connection or close link with a person will not make such a glaring disparity in stating the years of their association.
One of the key duties of the DLAC is to prepare and explanation of the link between the party and evaluate the circumstance which led to the offer being made. In light of the above there seemed to be clear extraneous reasons and not altruism as stated by the Donor and recipient. It is submitted that it was clear that they had met only recently and the photographs produced were that of recent association while having been together which not more than few months were and not of an earlier older association. It is submitted that the THOR rules were clearly stipulates old photographs. There were no old WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:19085 photographs. It is submitted that no documentary link was produced as evidence of the link.
The financial status of the Donor and the recipient was clearly different based on their financial standing as shown by the bank accounts.
It is further submitted that the Act envisages clear restriction on living organ donation. It is submitted that living organ donation is permitted only through near relatives. Only in exceptional and extreme circumstances with clear safeguards, living organ donation can be resorted to as is clearly stated in section 9 of the THOT Act 1994.
The Appellate Authority also reviewed the case, found no merit in the appeal, and upheld the rejection.
As per the Act, the DLAC is mandated to ensure that there is no financial disparity, no involvement of middlemen, and that the donor-recipient link is established through old photographs. The committee acted strictly in accordance with these legal requirements. Since no credible evidence was provided to establish a genuine connection between the donor and the recipient, the DLAC found no merit in the application The DLAC, in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act, thoroughly examined the case and found no merit in the donor-recipient relationship, ultimately rejecting the application. The Appellate Authority also reviewed the matter and upheld the decision, reaffirming that the rejection was based on legal and ethical grounds. Ensuring that organ donation remains free from financial disparity, middlemen involvement, and fabricated relationships is crucial in preventing organ trafficking. This order is issued in compliance with the judgment dated 28.01.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 439/2025 filed by Sri. Muhammed Rasheed and Smt. Nisha."
7. A reading of the findings in Ext.P21 order would reveal that the 4th respondent has not adverted to the categoric directions passed by this Court in Ext.P20 judgment, directing the 4th respondent to specifically advert to the observations made by the ACP in Ext.P1 WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:19085 Certificate of Altruism and his affidavit filed before this Court. This was directed because the ACP has in unequivocal terms stated that the donation by the 2 nd petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner was purely altruistic and on her own free will and volition, without any compulsion, influence or intend for reward or consideration.
8. Unfortunately, the 4th respondent has not adverted to the above directions, instead has concluded that in the interaction with the 2 nd petitioner's husband, he has taken a contradictory stand than what was stated by him earlier before the 4th respondent. Therefore, the donation is not altruistic.
9. On what material the 4th respondent has arrived at the said conclusion is not discernible, especially when the petitioners have produced Exts.P1 to P11 documents to substantiate their assertions. It is only on the basis of the assumptions and conjectures that the 4 th respondent has passed the impugned order. WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 9
2025:KER:19085
10. The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (Act No.42 of 1994) ('Act', in short), is enacted to regulate the removal, storage and transplantation of human organs and tissues for therapeutic purposes and for the prevention of commercial dealings in human organs and tissues and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
11. The Act permits and regulates organ and tissue transplantations among near-relatives and non-near- relatives as per the provisions of the Act, 1994, and the Rules made thereunder.
12. S.2(i) defines "near relatives" as spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson or granddaughter.
13. In the case on hand, it is undisputed that the 2 nd petitioner is not a near relative of the 1 st petitioner. Therefore, the parties are regulated by Section 9 (3) of the Act, which reads as follows:
"9. Restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs or tissues or both.― WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:19085 (3) If any donor authorises the removal of any of his (human organs or tissues or both) before his death under sub-
section (1) of S.3 for transplantation into the body of such recipient, not being a near relative, as is specified by the donor by reason of affection or attachment towards the recipient or for any other special reasons, such (human organ or tissue or both) shall not be removed and transplanted without the prior approval of the Authorisation Committee."
14. The above provision permits the donation of human organs and tissues in favour of a person who is not a near relative but with the prior approval of the Authorisation Committee.
15. To achieve the object of the Act, sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 and Rule 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 ('the Rules') have been incorporated in the Rules, which reads as under:
"R.7 Authorisation Committee. -
*** *** *** (3) When the proposed donor and the recipient are not near relatives, the Authorisation Committee shall, ―
(i) evaluate that there is no commercial transaction between the recipient and the donor and that no payment has been made to the donor or promised to be made to the donor or any other person;
(ii) prepare an explanation of the link between them and the circumstances which led to the offer being made;
(iii) examine the reasons why the donor wishes to donate;
(iv) examine the documentary evidence of the link, e.g. proof that they have lived together, etc.;
(v) examine old photographs showing the donor and the recipient together;WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 11
2025:KER:19085
(vi) evaluate that there is no middleman or tout involved;
(vii) evaluate that financial status of the donor and the recipient by asking them to give appropriate evidence of their vocation and income for the previous three financial years and any gross disparity between the status of the two must be evaluated in the backdrop of the objective of preventing commercial dealing;
(viii) ensure that the donor is not a drug addict;
(ix) ensure that the near relative or if near relative is not available, any adult person related to donor by blood or marriage of the proposed unrelated donor is interviewed regarding awareness about his or her intention to donate an organ or tissue, the authenticity of the link between the donor and the recipient, and the reasons for donation, and any strong views or disagreement or objection of such kin shall also be recorded and taken note of."
"R.19. Procedure in case of transplant other than near relatives.― Where the proposed transplant is between other than near relatives and all cases where the donor or recipient is foreign national (irrespective of them being near relative or otherwise), the approval will be granted by the Authorisation Committee of the hospital or if hospital - based Authorisation Committee is not constituted, then by the District or State level Authorisation Committee."
16. If the Authorisation Committee is satisfied that the applicants fulfil the conditions under sub-rule (3) of Rules 7, it will issue a Certificate under Form -18 of the Rules granting permission for the transplant.
17. In Kuldeep Singh v. State of T.N., [(2005) 11 SCC 122], the Honourable Supreme Court, while interpreting sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, has held that the object of the statute is to prevent commercial WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:19085 dealings in human organs. If the donor is not a near relative of the recipient, then the Authorisation Committee has to be satisfied that the real purpose of the donation is due to the affection or attachment or for any other special reason. The Authorisation Committee would be better positioned to ascertain the authorisation's true intent and purpose by lifting the veil of projected affection or attachment and the so-called special reasons and by focusing on the true intent. The burden is on the applicants to establish the real intent by placing relevant materials for consideration before the Authorisation Committee. Whether there is affection, attachment, or special reason is within the special knowledge of the applicants, and a heavy burden is cast on them.
18. Going by the scheme of the Act, the statutory authorities have to be satisfied whether the organ or tissue donation is altruistic as per the parameters laid down under Rule 7 (3) and the materials placed before them. There is no definitive formula to categorically determine whether a donation is altruistic or if there is a WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:19085 commercial transaction. However, in marginal cases, like the present one, the distinction between granting or denying approval for transplantation is separated by a narrow line. The commendable intent of the Act is to prohibit commercial transactions in transplantations and to safeguard vulnerable individuals from exploitation. It's not to be forgotten that some compassionate individuals are willing to selflessly donate their organs to give a new lease of life to a family member or friend. So, it would be unpragmatic to assess every donation between non- relatives on arithmetical scales or view them with scepticism in such summary proceedings. A rigid and inflexible interpretation of Section 9 (3) of the Act would undermine the laudable object of the provision and render it otiose and nugatory. Even otherwise, nowadays, it is common knowledge that the number of recipients outnumber the donors.
19. Recently a Bench of this Court in Ismail Kunju vs. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KHC 547] has categorically held that the authorities are obliged to give WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:19085 reasons in the orders passed under the Act. It is apposite to refer to the legal principles in the decision, which reads as follows:
"11. Thus, the scheme of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 2014 obligates the Authorisation Committee to provide the applicants an opportunity to be heard, and if the application is to be rejected, it has to give the reasons in writing. The discretion has to be used pragmatically and all interviews are to be videographed. Therefore, the statutory scheme contemplates and ensures transparency and objectivity in the decision making process of the Committee. The reasons are to be given in reference to the parameters under R.7(3) of the Rules of 2014 as to why the application filed for organ transplantation between the proposed living donor and the recipient, who are not near relatives, is being rejected.
12. Apart from the statutory mandate, as a matter of fairness and transparency in the decision - making, if the Authorisation Committee comes to the conclusion that the application for organ transplantation is not to be approved, then the applicant is entitled to know the reasons, especially since the decision has serious consequences on the applicant. When a person's request for kidney transplant is rejected, it directly affects his / her right to life and health. In the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, 2010 (9) SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking a review of the law on the subject of duty to give reasons, summarised certain principles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that recording of reasons operates as a restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi - judicial or even administrative power. Reasons re - assure that discretion has been exercised by the decision - maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that reasons have become now indispensable component of a decision - making process even by administrative bodies, affecting the right of the citizens. Reasons in the orders facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. Insistence on reasons in the order is a requirement for both accountability and transparency. If reasons are not given in the decision making process, then it may not be possible to determine whether the authority has applied its mind to the issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that reasons in support of decisions must be cogent and clear and pretense of WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:19085 reasons or "rubber - stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a mere valid decision - making process. This law, expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applies more stringently when an application for an organ transplantation made by a patient at a critical stage is rejected by the Committee on the ground that the donation is not altruistic".
20. On an overall consideration of the facts, the materials on record and the law laid down by this Court, and taking into account the fact that this Court had directed the 4th respondent to re-consider the joint application filed by the petitioners, after adverting to Ext.P1 certificate and the affidavit filed by the ACP, but the 4th respondent has reiterated its earlier stand, I am not inclined to again remand the matter to the 4th respondent, since I am satisfied that the donation is purely out of altruism. We need to have an optimistic perspective that non-near relatives exist, who are genuinely willing to sacrifice their organs or tissues for altruistic consideration.
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 16
2025:KER:19085
21. In Soubiya v. District Level Authorisation Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Ernakulam (2023 (6) KHC 293), this Court has emphatically held that there is no presumption that a person in financial requirement would only act for monetary gain, which is an affront to the dignity of an individual and is against the constitutional imperatives.
22. In Shareef K.M and another v. State of Kerala and others (2017 (4) KHC 122), this Court has held thus:
"6. As noted above, one of the reasons stated by the Authorisation Committee in the instant case to decline the approval sought by the petitioners is that there is a gross disparity in the financial status of the donor and recipient. Gross disparity in the financial status is certainly a factor to be gone into by the Authorisation Committee to ascertain whether there is any financial dealings in the transaction. But, that does not mean that the Authorisation Committee is prevented from granting approval for transplantation, if there is gross disparity in the financial status of the parties. Voluntary donation of an organ by a person is a self deprivation of the highest order and it is inhuman to hold that such sacrifices would be made by people only based on monetary considerations. The materials on record do not indicate that there is gross disparity in the financial status of the parties. Even assuming that there is disparity in the financial status of the parties, the same by itself is not a ground to decline the approval for transplantation".
(emphasis supplied)
23. In C. Seshadri & Another v. State of Telangana (2018 ALT 5 637), the Andhra Pradesh High WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:19085 Court quashed the Authorisation Committee's decision and approved the transplant on the ground that a mere suspicion or economic disparity is not a reason to deny approval.
24. The Madras High Court in S.Samson v. Authorisation Committee (2008 SCC OnLine Mad. 317) has succinctly held that the Authorisation Committee must give a cogent and convincing reasoning for concluding that there exists financial bonding between the recipient and the donor. The reasons must be valid and acceptable. An opportunity of hearing should be given to the parties concerned. The matter must be looked into with the avowed object of helping people in need whose lives are in danger. While exercising power under the Act, the authorities concerned must look into the issue in a manner that saves a person's life, and not from a technical point of view.
25. The Honourable Supreme Court in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants & Residents v. Union of India [(2019) 8 SCC 607] has held that WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:19085 the right to health is fundamental to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life extends beyond mere survival to include living with dignity, encompassing necessities like nutrition, clothing, shelter, and the freedom to express, move, and interact. Every act that undermines human dignity amounts to a partial deprivation of the right to life. Such restrictions must align with a reasonable, fair, and just legal procedure that upholds other fundamental rights. To truly live is to live with dignity.
26. On an analysis of the law, the facts and materials on record, and for the reasons already stated above, this Court concludes that Ext.P21 order is arbitrary and unreasonable and is liable to be quashed. Given the pressing urgency of the matter i.e., the 1st petitioner's medical condition, and this is the third round of litigation before this Court, it would be imprudent to relegate the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration. The reality is that time is of the essence, and any further delay may jeopardise the 1st petitioner's life. Therefore, I deem WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:19085 it appropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to grant the petitioners the required approval for the transplantation procedure.
27. In Comptroller and Auditor General of India Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another V. K.S. Jagannathan & Another [(1986)2 SCC 679)], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that to prevent injustice, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or public authority should have passed or exercised in its discretion at its level.
In the above conspectus, I quash Exts.P21 order passed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is directed to grant permission to the petitioners for the transplantation, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If such permission is not granted within the stipulated time period, it shall be deemed that such permission is granted. WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 20
2025:KER:19085 Upon the grant of such approval/deemed approval, the petitioners shall be entitled to undergo the transplantation as sought in Exts.P10 and P11 joint applications.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:19085 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7866/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF ALTRUISM ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR DATED 16.09.2024 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND DATED 16.08.2024 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HER DAUGHTER DATED 16.08.2024 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MANALUR MLA DATED 21.09.2024 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PATTAMBI MLA DATED 03.09.2024 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 31.08.2024 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE DONOR DATED 31.08.2024 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND OF DONOR DATED 31.08.2024 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE DONOR DATED 31.08.2024 EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 21.09.2024 EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM II APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 26.09.2024 EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2024 WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:19085 EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.10.2024 EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.36009/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.10.2024 EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2024 EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.439/2025 DATED 07.01.2025 EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR IN W.P.(C). NO. 439/2025 DATED 20.01.2025 EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR DATED 13.09.2024 EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DONOR BEFORE THE PAVARATTY POLICE DATED 10.09.2024 EXHIBIT P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.439/2025 DATED 28.01.2025 EXHIBIT P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2025