sk 1 wp7134.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7134 OF 2011 Mr.Dipankar Khanna s/o. Mr.Krishenlal Khanna & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Behere, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondents. ... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 2.8.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority under section 17(2) of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the decision of the authorisation committee of Government Medical College, Dhule, came to be confirmed. sk 2 wp7134.11 3. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no.1 is a patient, suffering from acute renal failure. Initially, he was in Mumbai staying in Lokhandwala, Andheri. However, at present the petitioner no.1 has shifted to Bangalore. The petitioner no.1 is the spiritual guru of the petitioner no.2. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 has undertaken training from Yoga Institute in Mumbai. It is contended that after shifting to Bangalore, the petitioner no.1 has registered for cadaver transplant at NU Hospital at Bangalore and at a later point of time, the petitioner no.1 registered for cadaver transplant at Columbia Asia Referral Hospital, Yashvantpur, Bangalore. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are having substantial material to show that there exists love and affection between the parties. However, such material could not be produced before the Committee as well as the Appellate Authority. It is contended that the petitioners may be permitted to produce additional material before the Appellate Authority to establish that there exists love and affection between them. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is in a very serious condition and requires dialysis every alternate day and, therefore, it is prayed that in the interest of justice, the sk 3 wp7134.11 petitioners may be given one opportunity to prove love and affection by producing necessary documentary and other evidence before the Appellate Authority. 5. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that since the petitioners failed to prove the fact of love and affection, both the authorities were justified in dis- allowing the claim of the petitioners for kidney transplant. 6. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that there is no evidence or proof to support the fact of friendship, love and affection between the petitioners and, therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners in paragraph 5 of the Memo of Appeal have specifically stated that though the petitioners have substantial material to establish the existence of love and affection between them, the said material could not be produced before the Appellate Authority and prayed that if opportunity is given to the petitioners to produce the evidence once again before the Appellate Authority, they will be in a position to establish that there exists love and sk 4 wp7134.11 affection between them. It is no doubt true that if the petitioners had substantial evidence/material, it was necessary for them to produce before the first as well as before the Appellate Authority. However, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to produce the evidence, documentary or otherwise before the Appellate Authority in order to prove the fact of love and affection between them. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned appellate order dated 2.8.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to re-consider the appeal of the petitioners afresh, opportunity be given to the petitioners to place on record additional documentary and other evidence within a period of two weeks from today and if such additional evidence, documentary or otherwise is produced by the petitioners, the Appellate Authority is directed to re- consider the issue afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, and take a fresh decision in this regard within a period of two weeks thereafter. The time-bound programme is given to the Appellate Authority for passing fresh order in appeal, considering the condition of the petitioner no.1 which appears to be serious. sk 5 wp7134.11 8. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)