skc 1 WP-2428-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2011 Mrs. Rita Rohit Agrawal ..Petitioner versus The Authorization Committee at Pune & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Counsel and Mr. M. S. Karnik for Petitioner. Mr. V. D. Patil - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar – Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 20 July 2011. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel seeks permission to delete the respondent no.1. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 22nd November 2010 passed by the Regional Authorisation Committee for Approval of Unrelated Transplant, whereby the proposal submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to transplant came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner was unable to establish the aspect of love and affection involved skc 2 WP-2428-11 in the process of donation and could not submit any proof for the same. Similarly, the petition is also directed against the order dated 17th January 2011 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby it is held that the petitioner did not meet the requirement of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and therefore donation of kidney by Mrs. Sunita Rathod should not be permitted and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner during the course of interview before the Regional Authorisation Committee stated that the donor knows the petitioner for seven years. Petitioner is suffering from CRF for last five years. Donor Mrs. Rathow saw petitioner’s sufferings for all these years and therefore out of love and affection the donor voluntarily decided to donate her kidney to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Regional Authorisation Committee however did not accept the statement made by the petitioner and found that the petitioner was unable to establish the aspect of love and affection involved in the process of donation. It is submitted that both the lower authorities failed to take into consideration that Mrs. Rathod was working with the petitioner for last seven years and in order to establish this fact the petitioner is ready and willing to file affidavit of the neighbours and is also ready and willing to produce them before the Committee along with other documentary evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner is critically ill and needs kidney transplant in order to save her skc 3 WP-2428-11 life. It is therefore prayed that the Regional Authorisation Committee may be asked to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as permit the petitioner to produce additional oral and documentary evidence before the said Committee and Committee may be directed to take a decision afresh in this regard. 4. Counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that the Authorisation Committee has given reasons for holding that the petitioner was unable to establish that the donor was donating kidney out of love and affection. Same view has been expressed by the lower Appellate Authority and therefore rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the Committee as well as the lower Appellate Authority. The Regional Authorisation Committee came to a conclusion that the donor and recipient were unable to explain the love and affection in this donation and could not submit any proof for the same on the following grounds: i. Donor Mrs. Rathod never accompanied recipient Mrs. Agarwal for medical treatment and dialysis. ii. Donor could not spell out name of the building, name of skc 4 WP-2428-11 neighbours of petitioner, journey route from Dadar to petitioner’s residence; iii. Donor has small kid of 6 years staying with his father at Aurangabad and therefore the Committee could not believe that the donor (mother) would stay away from her child; iv. Husband of the donor has visited Mumbai only once in last 6 years. Similarly there are few other reasons given by the Committee for coming to the conclusion that the donor and recipient were unable to establish the love and affection involved in the process of donation. Similar view has been expressed by the lower Appellate Authority. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has requested that the petitioner be given one more opportunity to go before the Committee and be permitted to produce additional documentary as well as oral evidence which includes neighbours etc. to demonstrate that the entire transaction of donation of kidney is out of love and affection between the donor and recipient. 7. Considering the ailment of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, we dispose of the petition by passing following order :- skc 5 WP-2428-11 i. We direct the Authorisation Committee at Pune to give afresh hearing to the petitioner and permit the petitioner to file fresh / additional oral and documentary evidence before the Committee. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Committee on 28th July 2011. ii. It is further directed to take afresh decision based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner before the Committee in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of four weeks thereafter. iii. It is made clear that Order dated 22nd October 2010 passed by the Committee as well as Order dated 17th January 2011 passed by the lower Appellate Authority shall not come in any way of the Authorisation Committee to reconsider the issue afresh accordingly. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)