IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27855 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, PUTHUR HOUSE, NARIPATTA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PAUL ANTONY MANIAMKOT RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, (THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR)-680581. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27855 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a chronic kidney patient requiring transplantation of his kidney. He has identified a donor, who has expressed his willingness to donate one kidney to the petitioner. In view of the provisions contained under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act and Rules, the approval of the 5th respondent was sought for. It would appear that the 5th respondent doubted the bonafides of the donor and therefore rejected the request as per Ext.P7. 2. That order was challenged before this Court and this Court by Ext.P10 judgment directed consideration of the matter by the Director of Medical Education. It would appear that the Director of Medical Education forwarded the matter to the Chairman of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent thereafter again rejected the request by Ext.P11. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, WPC No. 27855/10 :2 : when the donor and his wife appeared before the 5th respondent and gave their statement, the facts disclosed were contradictory to the affidavit filed before the 5th respondent, and it was therefore that, the genuineness of the donor was doubted. 4. However, fact remains that pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment, when the matter was reconsidered, the 5th respondent did not summon either the donor or the donee and has only gone by the records available. This in my view i s erroneous. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-considered. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P7 and P11 and direct the 5th respondent to reconsider the request of the petitioner after issuing notice to the petitioner and also the donor. This shall be done at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp