Kerala High Court
Shareef M vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 1 2025:KER:25290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9532 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SHAREEF M
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA M.,CHAMETHADKA HOUSE, DELAMAPADY P.O.,
DELAMAPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671543
2 KAVITHA K.R.
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O.DEEPU H.,PARAMBITHARAVELI VEETTIL, NORTH
ARYAD, MANNANCHERY, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE,
AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -
688538
BY ADVS.
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
P.ABDUL NISHAD
ISTINAF ABDULLAH
THASNEEM A.P.
SURYA S.R.
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
W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 2 2025:KER:25290
3 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI,
PIN - 683503
BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.B.S.SYMANTHAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 3 2025:KER:25290
C.S.DIAS, J.
=============================
W.P (C)No.9532 of 2025
=============================
Dated this the 25th March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P19 order passed by the 3rd respondent and direct the 3rd respondent to grant permission to the petitioners' for unrelated renal transplantation.
2. The 1st petitioner is suffering from chronic kidney disease. He has been advised to undergo renal transplantation. As there is no suitable member in the 1 st petitioner's family to donate a kidney, the 2nd petitioner has volunteered to donate one of her kidneys for the transplantation. Consequently, the petitioners submitted a joint application before the 3rd respondent for permission for the donation. The petitioners' hospital had also obtained Ext.P2 certificate of altruism from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha (Dy.S.P). Notwithstanding the petitioners producing all the W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 4 2025:KER:25290 requisite documents along with the certificate of altruism, the 3rd respondent rejected the joint application by Ext.P14 order. Even though the petitioners' preferred an appeal challenging the said order before the 2nd respondent, the same was dismissed by Ext.P15 order. Challenging Exts.P14 and P15 orders, the petitioners' filed W.P(C)No.31830/2024 before this Court. By Ext.P16 judgment, this Court allowed the writ petition by quashing Exts.P14 and P15 orders and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the joint application, after adverting to Ext.P2 certificate of altruism. Yet, by Ext.P17 order, the 3 rd respondent again rejected the joint application holding that there was lack of corroborative evidence to prove the authenticity of the donation. The petitioners' again challenged Ext.P17 order by filing W.P. (C)No.37113/2024 before this Court. By Ext.P18 judgment, this Court again allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext.P17 order and directed the 3 rd respondent to reconsider the matter keeping in mind Ext.P2 W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 5 2025:KER:25290 certificate of altruism. Notwithstanding the specific directions passed by this Court, the 3 rd respondent has rejected the application by Ext.P19 order by reiterating its earlier view, Ext.P19 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners' and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioners had submitted Ext.P8 joint application along with the requisite documents, including Ext.P2 certificate of altruism issued by the Dy.S.P, before the 3rd respondent for permission to the 2nd petitioner to donate one of her kidneys to the 1st petitioner. By Ext.P14 order, the 3 rd respondent rejected the said application, which was confirmed by the 2 nd respondent by Ext.P15 order. However, by Ext.P16 judgment, this Court set aside Exts.P14 and P15 orders, and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter keeping in mind Ext.P2 certificate of altruism. Notwithstanding the specific directions passed by this Court, the 3rd respondent again passed Ext. P17 order W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 6 2025:KER:25290 reiterating its findings in Ext.P14 order.
5. By Ext.P18 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P17 order by holding as follows:
"It is disconcerting to note that in Ext.P21, the 2 nd respondent has neither taken into account the above observations of this Court nor adverted to the certificate of altruism. To say the least, the disdainful manner in which Ext.P21 is passed borders on contempt. This Court is refraining from taking action, hoping that better sense will prevail next time.
7. Apart from Ext.P16 certificate of altruism, the petitioner has also produced Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Urdoor, Kasaragod, Ext.P3 issued by the President of Delampady Grama Panchayat, Ext.P4 issued by the President, Mannencherry Grama Panchayat and Ext.P5 of the Village Officer, Komalapuram. All the above mentioned documents are certificates issued by responsible persons vouching that the 2nd petitioner is donating her organ out of her free will and no commercial transaction is involved. The 2nd respondent has mechanically dismissed the joint application without considering these crucial documents and based on a finding that no photograph or other evidence is produced to prove that the recipient and the donor's husband had worked together. The other reason is that the donor demonstrated lack of understanding regarding the health implications of organ donation and her husband, whose health is precarious, adds to the concern.
8.No doubt, while evaluating the evidence for ascertaining whether any commercial transaction is involved, explanation of the link between the donor and the recipient, including their old photographs, would be of relevance. It does not mean that in cases where such evidence is absent, the Committee should jump to the conclusion regarding presence of commercial element, after eschewing all other proof produced by the parties. As has been held by this Court in Jillet K.T. v. State of Kerala [2024 KLT OnLine 2497], an onerous responsibility is cast on the Committee, since, in most cases, life of the recipient is dependent on its decision. Therefore, the Committee has to W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 7 2025:KER:25290 decide each application based on the materials produced, the attendant circumstances and other relevant factors and not on the basis of surmises, conjectures or personal opinion of the members.
9. In the case at hand, the income certificates produced as Exts.P9 and P10 reveals that the annual family income of the recipient is only Rs.66,000/- and that of the donor, Rs.48,000/-. As such, it may not be possible for the donor to secure the organ on commercial basis. Even though Rule 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 call for greater precaution when the donor is a woman, that cannot be considered as an embargo against a woman donor volunteering to donate her organ. None of these aspects having been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, this Court is left with no alternative, other than to quash Ext.P21.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within ten days of receipt of a copy of this judgment, adverting to all relevant factors and uninfluenced by the earlier order of rejection".
6. Despite the specific directions passed by this Court in Ext.P18 judgment, by the impugned Ext.P19 order, the 3rd respondent has held as follows:
"The donor was accompanied by her husband and his sister, with no close relatives of the donor present. The husband's eagerness and the absence of the donor's near relatives raise concerns about potential pressure on the donor to proceed with the kidney. donation, especially considering she has two small children who depend on her, Based on circumstantial evidence, the committee strongly suspects the involvement of middlemen in this case. Given the persistent doubt regarding the link between the donor and the recipient, it is the petitioners' responsibility to resolve this issue by providing substantial and convincing evidence Despite multiple opportunities, including three reviews by the DLAC and W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 8 2025:KER:25290 one by the Appellate Authority, no adequate documentation or proof of a gene relationship has been submitted.
Alappuzha district,mainly from coastal areas where the donor resides, has recently seen an increase in organ donations as per the news reports, which raises concerns about possible organized trafficking within vulnerable communities. The DLAC is particularly vigilant in balancing genuine altruistic donations with the duty to prevent exploitation and trafficking, as Kerala holds high national-statistics in organ trafficking. Thus, the committee has adhered to strict criteria established in the statute to ensure that the donation is free of any external pressure or commercial motive.
The committee has a responsibility to prioritize the health and well-being of the donor, especially when the donor is a woman with young children, in addition to evaluating the recipient's health condition. Ensuring that the donor is fully informed and capable of making a voluntary decision without external pressures is essential. The committee must also carefully consider the implications for the donor's family, particularly the welfare of her small, dependent children, before approving any organ donation.
We respectfully request the Honourable High Court of Kerala to initiate an investigation whether middlemen are exploiting poor women for organ donations. The committee has noticed that many donors come from very poor backgrounds and are from vulnerable communities, often from specific areas like Alappuzha. Thrissur, and Cherunniyoor in Varkala. In several of these cases, the police have issued certificates of altruism without fully investigating whether the donations are genuine. An inquiry could help uncover any exploitation and protect vulnerable communities, ensuring that organ donations are done ethically and legally.
Therefore, based on these considerations and the statutory mandate to uphold the health, welfare, and integrity of all parties involved, the DLAC concludes that the conditions do not meet the required criteria under Section 7 of the THOR Act. Accordingly, the application is rejected to safeguard the donor's health, the welfare of her minor children, and to prevent potential exploitation.
This is in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 28.10.2024 WP (C)No.37113/2024 filed by Sri.Shareef M and Smt. Kavitha K.R."
W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 9 2025:KER:25290
7. A reading of Ext.P19 order would demonstrate that the 3rd respondent has not adverted to any of the specific directions of this Court in Ext.P18 judgment. There is no whisper regarding the the findings of this Court or Ext.P2 certificate of altruism issued by the Dy.S.P. Instead, the 3rd respondent has reiterated its finding that they suspect the involvement of the middlemen in the case. On what basis the 3rd respondent has formed the opinion is not discernible from the said order. Therefore, it is only to be assumed that the findings are based on assumptions and conjunctures.
8. 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. W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 10 2025:KER:25290
9. 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.
10. S.2(i) defines "near relatives" as spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson or granddaughter.
11. In the case on hand, it is undisputed that the 2nd petitioner is not a near relative of the 1st 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.― (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."
12. 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 W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 11 2025:KER:25290 Authorisation Committee.
13. 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;
(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."W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 12
2025:KER:25290 "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."
14. If the Authorisation Committee is satisfied that the applicants fulfill 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.
15. 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 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 W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 13 2025:KER:25290 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.
16. 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 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. W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 14 2025:KER:25290 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.
17. 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 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 W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 15 2025:KER:25290 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 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".W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 16
2025:KER:25290
18. 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.
19. 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)
20. In C. Seshadri & Another v. State of W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 17 2025:KER:25290 Telangana (2018 ALT 5 637), the Andhra Pradesh High 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.
21. 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.
22. The Honourable Supreme Court in W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 18 2025:KER:25290 Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants & Residents v. Union of India [(2019) 8 SCC 607] has held that 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.
23. 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 3rd respondent to re-consider the joint application filed by the petitioners, after adverting to Ext.P2 certificate of altruism issued by the DyS.P, but the 3rd respondent has failed to comply with the W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 19 2025:KER:25290 directions of this Court. Hence, I am not inclined to again remand the matter to the 3rd 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.
24. For the reasons already stated above, this Court concludes that Ext.P19 order is arbitrary and unreasonable and is liable to be quashed. Given the pressing urgency of the matter i.e., the 1 st 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 1 st petitioner's life. Therefore, I deem 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.
W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 202025:KER:25290
25. 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.P19 order passed by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd 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. Upon the grant of such approval/deemed approval, the petitioners shall be entitled to undergo the transplantation as sought in Ext.P8 joint application. W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 21 2025:KER:25290 The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE ma/25.03.2025 W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 22 2025:KER:25290 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9532/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ADOOR DATED 22.01.2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ALTRUISM ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DATED 25.12.2023 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER HUSBAND DATED 18.12.2023 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER SISTER- IN-LAW DATED 18.12.2023 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 24.01.2024 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF MANNANCHERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 29.01.2024 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DELAMAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 30.11.2023 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 24.01.2024 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.12.2023 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.12.2023 Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE SISTER OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.12.2023 W.P(C) No.9532 of 2025 23 2025:KER:25290 Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 3 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.12.2023 Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 11 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 24.01.2024 Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2024 Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2024 Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO. 31830/2024 DATED 09.09.2024 Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.09.2024 Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO. 37113/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 28.10.2024 Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.11.2024 Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CONTEMPT CASE NO. 3261/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20.12.2024 Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.
3261/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.01.2025 Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO. 3261/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.02.2025