IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 480 of 2009(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SANTHOSH.K.A, S/O. SEKHARAN, ACHUTHABAHVANAM, CHALADU PO KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE TRANSPLATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ACT 1994, REPRESENTED BY ITS CO-ORDINATOR, THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R4 SRI.M.S.KALESH FOR R4 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R4 SRI.V.VINAY MENON FOR R4 SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) FOR R4 by GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.480/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE DT. 26.11.08. P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 29.12.08 ISSUED BY DR.V.P.SATHYANATHAN. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 480 OF 2009 (F) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to direct the second respondent to convene the meeting of the committee and to approve the kidney transplantation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. According to the petitioner, in terms of the provisions contained in Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, he has made an application to the fourth respondent hospital, and that the same should be considered by the second respondent immediately. Complaining of delay in this matter the writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that applications that have been received upto 10-12-2008 have all been considered by the second respondent and that, they have not received any application from the fourth respondent concerning the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.480/2009 - 2 - 3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital during the period 8-2-2008 to 15-2-2008 and he has been certified fit for kidney transplantation. It is stated that an application was submitted by one of the relatives of the petitioner on 12-12-2008 and that on noticing certain defects in the documents enclosed, the application and the documents were returned, to cure the defects and to re-submit the same so that the same could be transmitted to the second respondent for consideration. It is stated that so far they have not received any application from the petitioner or any of his relatives. 4. In the nature of the submissions made by the counsel for the fourth respondent, I am not in a position to act upon the petitioner's submissions and issue the directions that are sought for. Since it is stated by respondents 2 and 4 that no application is pending, it is for the petitioner to make a fresh application for the consideration of second respondent. W.P.(C) No.480/2009 - 3 - Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) It will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application under Rule 6B of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 to the fourth respondent. The application accompanied by the required documents shall be submitted within a period of one week from today. (ii) On receipt of the application, the fourth respondent shall forthwith process the application and if the application is complete in all respects, it shall be transmitted to the second respondent within three days of its receipt. (iii) Taking into account the absence of the Chairman in the second respondent, it is directed that the second respondent shall consider the application and orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before 7-12-2009. W.P.(C) No.480/2009 - 4 - (iv) I record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the third respondent has already conducted an enquiry and that no objection is reported. In view of the above, it is clarified that if any application is made as directed above, no further enquiry by the third respondent will be necessary. (v) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent, for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.