CWP No. 3222 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3222 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.9.2008 Ramesh Kumar and another ....Petitioner Versus Sate of Haryana and another ....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri S.A. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri S.K. Hooda, Senior DAG, Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.10.2007, whereby petitioner No.1 was not permitted to donate his kidney to petitioner No.2. Vide order dated Annexure P.20, the Authorisation Committee constituted under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (for short `the Act’), has found that though the donor treats the donee as his Dharm Bahan (sister), but during examination by the Committee, he could not tell about the names of family members of petitioner No.2, nor petitioner No. 2 was able to tell about the names of family members of petitioner No.1. It was also found that the son of petitioner No.1 does not want to donate the kidney, whereas the three daughters of the donee are married and their in-laws are forbidding them from donating the kidney. The Authorisation Committee found that the process of kidney donation seems to be doubtful and the patient was advised to search for another competent and reasonable kidney donor. CWP No. 3222 of 2008 (2) On 5.5.2008, this Court found that to rule out commercial dealings between the parties, both, donor and donee are required to give details of their financial position and vocation and therefore, the matter was referred to Authorisation Committee to reconsider its decision in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 11 SC 122. In view of the said directions, the Authorisation Committee again considered the question of grant of permission to petitioner No.1 to donate the kidney to petitioner No.2. A report dated 23.5.2008 has been submitted, wherein petitioner N. 1 has given in his hand written report regarding details of his income and also the income of his wife, from the business of Beauty Parlour. It was found that the donor did not submit any type of written/attested certificate (Income Tax Returns, receipts etc.) in respect of his own income as well as the income of his wife to verify the same. In the proceedings dated 25.4.2008, it was found by the Committee that petitioner No.1 has not been able to submit any proof regarding his working in the Forest Department as a caner. It was found that the though the donor had stated before the Committee that his and his wife's annual income is about Rs.3.00 lacs, as his wife runs a beauty parlour and imparts training to the girls also, yet the donor did not present any document in support of the annual income. It was further found that contrary to his claim that he earns a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by doing canning work, which is paid to him every month by the contractor, the contractor (Vishal Kumar) got recorded his statement that he pays a sum of Rs.3000-4000/- per month to the donor for six months in a year. After considering various facts, the authorization committee reiterated the decision taken by the Authorisation Committee on 9.10.2007. Admittedly, petitioner No. 2 has three married daughters, CWP No. 3222 of 2008 (3) but they have not opted for donating the kidney. Besides, petitioner No. 2 has a son, who is stated to be living separately. Once the near relations have not come forward for donation of the kidney, it is apparent that petitioner No.1 has been introduced for donation of a kidney not for love and affection, but on account of monetary consideration alone. The judgments in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2005 Punjab and Haryana 172 and Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 237, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are of no help to the petitioners. In Rajinder Kumar's case (supra), it was found that none of the close relatives of the respondent was in a position to donate the kidney, whereas in the present case, none of the four children of petitioner No.2, none has come forward to donate kidney. In Jaswinder Singh’s case (supra), there was a police report that the donor was donating the kidney out of his free will, but in the present case, the Authorisation Committee has examined the question of grant of permission to petitioner No.1 to donate his kidney twice by recording recording detailed findings. Such findings are based upon the reasonable consideration of the material before the Committee. In view of the above, we do not find that the impugned order passed by the Authorisation Committee, warrants any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in the present writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 18.9.2008 ds