IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24834 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR PILLAI, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, AGED 37, PLANULLIL VEEDU, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. SHIBU K.J., S/O.JOHN, AGED 29, KAROTTU HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.SURAJ KRISHNA.B.S SRI.P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, T.D.MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. LAKESHORE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD MARADU, KOCHI-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRIJAGAN, J. --------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 24834 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent Hospital to forward the joint application of the petitioners seeking approval for transplantation of the kidney of the 2nd petitioner, on the fist petitioner. The first respondent is the State Level Authorization Committee for human organ transplantation as per the Transplantation of the Human Organs Act. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, namely Exhibit P2, intimated that the 2nd petitioner is involved in a criminal case, refused to forward the application to the first respondent. The petitioner submits that, that amounts to taking a decision by the 2nd respondent on a matter which the first respondent alone can take under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:- i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of quashing Exhibit P1 and P2 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondent. ii. issue a writ of declaration that the first petitioner is entitled to get transplant the kidney from the second petitioner. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondent No.2 to forward 2 W.P.(C). NO. 24834 OF 2010 the joint application of the petitioners seeking approval of the first respondent to transplant kidney of the second petitioner to the first petitioner, and issue a further direction to the first respondent to grant approval for removal of kidney from the second petitioner and to transplant it to the first petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Honorable Court. The counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that it is because of Exhibit P2 report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police which disentitles the first petitioner for getting transplantation of kidney of the 2nd petitioner, that the application was not forwarded to the first respondent. I have considered the contentions in detail. Whatever be the opinion of the respondents 2 and 3, in respect of the issue, I am of opinion that, in so far as the statutory authority to decide the matter finally, is the first respondent, the 2nd respondent is bound to forward the joint application of the petitioner along with the opinion of the 3rd respondent to the first respondent and it is for the first respondent to take a final decision in the matter after taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with the statutory provisions. Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to forward the joint application filed by the petitioners to the first respondent within one week from today and the first respondent shall take a decision on 3 W.P.(C). NO. 24834 OF 2010 the same in its next meeting and communicate the decision to the petitioners and the 2nd respondent immediately thereafter. I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the parties and it is entirely for the first respondent to take a decision in the matter in accordance with the statutory provisions. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE RKC.