IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37386 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAJI KUMAR.K.N., S/.NARAYANA PILLAI, MALAYIL KALIYIKKAL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, ZONAL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 3. SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682 011. 4. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA, PIN – 689 101. 5. E.V.ZEENATH, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.T.P.ZIDDIQUE, CITADEL HOUSE, KANNUR THANA P.O., KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 012. R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 37386 of 2010 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that in terms of Clause 25 of Ext.P4, the instructions to be followed by the hospitals, requesting clearance for organ transplantation from the Authorisation Committees of Kerala, affidavits of the donor and recipient are to be attested by the Judicial Magistrate of the place where the donor and recipient resides. According to the petitioner, he intends to donate one of his kidneys to the 5th respondent. 2. It is stated that, in terms of Clause 25 of Ext.P4, he wanted to get Ext.P1 affidavit attested by the fourth respondent, the Judicial Magistrate of the area where he resides. According to the petitioner, despite having submitted the affidavit, along with other documents, the fourth respondent refused to attest the affidavit. It is therefore the writ petition is filed, seeking an order directing the fourth respondent to attest Ext.P1 affidavit. 3. In view of the allegation in the writ petition that the fourth respondent refused to attest Ext.P1 affidavit, the W.P.(C) No.37386/2010 : 2 : Registry was directed to obtain a report from the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the Magistrate has submitted a report dated 20-12-2010, in which, it is mentioned that an Advocate practising in the Thiruvalla Courts approached the fourth respondent for attestation of an affidavit and that the Magistrate instructed the advocate to provide proper identification of the deponent and also sought certain other clarifications. It is stated that thereafter neither the counsel nor anybody else approached the Magistrate or submitted any application for the attestation of the affidavit. It is stated that therefore the case of the petitioner that the Magistrate had refused to attest the affidavit is incorrect. 4. Going by the report thus received from the Magistrate, it is seen that no application for attestation of the affidavit has been submitted. Therefore, if the petitioner submits Ext.P1 affidavit accompanied by an application for its attestation and produces the clarifications required by the Magistrate, necessarily, the Magistrate will have to consider the affidavit for attestation. W.P.(C) No.37386/2010 : 3 : 5. In that view of the matter, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to submit Ext.P1, his affidavit, for attestation before the fourth respondent in terms of Clause 25 of Ext.P4 instructions. It is directed that, if the affidavit is submitted accompanied by necessary application for its attestation and if the petitioner furnishes the clarifications sought for, the Magistrate will take necessary action for the attestation of the affidavit. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fifth respondent, the donee, is presently in a sinking stage and, therefore, the Magistrate should be directed to attest the affidavit without any delay in the matter. Having regard to the situation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the affidavit is submitted for attestation, I am sure that the Magistrate will take expeditious action as directed above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks