THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.23503 OF 2006 DATED: 27th NOVEMBER, 2006. Between : E.V. Chandramohan and another .. Petitioners And 1. The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (M1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.23503 OF 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 4- 10-2006 passed by the 2nd respondent, a committee constituted under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. The 1st petitioner is aged about 50 years whose kidneys have become totally dysfunctional. He was advised to undergo kidney transplantation. However, none of the members of his family was found to be fit for donating the kidney. In the circumstances, the 2nd petitioner herein, a family friend of the 1st petitioner, has come forward to donate the kidney. Accordingly, both the petitioners had applied to the 2nd respondent for grant of permission. By order dated 4-10-2006 the 2nd respondent rejected the said application on the ground that they were not convinced as to the altruistic nature of the kidney donation. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order rejecting permission sought by the petitioners was without application of mind to the actual facts of the case and thus being arbitrary and illegal is liable to set aside on that ground alone. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent Committee was carried away by extraneous considerations and failed to bestow its attention to serious consequences that would flow from the order of rejection. Under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) if any donor authorises the removal of any of his human organs before his death for transplantation into the body of such recipient not being a near relative, such human organ shall not be removed and transplanted without the prior approval of the authorization committee constituted under sub-section (4) of the Act. In the case on hand, admittedly, the 1st petitioner made such an application before the authorization committee seeking permission, but the same was rejected by order dated 4-10-2006. It is to be noted that Section 17 of the Act provides for an appeal to the State Government by any person aggrieved by an order of the authorisation committee. In the circumstances, the petitioner ought to have availed the said alternative remedy of appeal and cannot straightaway seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order which is cryptic and lacks reasons is ex facie illegal and therefore the existence of alternative remedy is not a bar to grant the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am unable to agree. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the members of the authorization committee interviewed the patient and the donor as well as the members of their families and recorded their statements. On the basis of the said material, the permission was rejected observing that the Committee was not convinced that there was no financial or other type of transaction in the proposed transplantation. The said order cannot be held to be without application of mind to the relevant factors. Whether such order is sustainable on merits or not is a matter to be decided by the appellate authority and cannot be enquired into by this Court. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 27–11-2006 gbs