(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10899 OF 2010 Ajit s/o. Appasaheb Walke & another. .. Petitioners. versus The Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department and Appellate Authority, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Shelke, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Respondent no.3 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. The request of the petitioners, to permit petitioner no. 2 to donate kidney to petitioner no.1, has been rejected concurrently by respondent no.3, as also, respondent no.1. 2. Mr. A.S. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Kuldeep Singh and another Vs. State of Tamilnadu & others (AIR 2005 SC 2106), to urge that because of technical approach the aims and objects of the enactment, namely, Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, and more particularly, Section 9, have been defeated. He further states that love and affection cannot be demonstrated by any document and the Committee ought to have granted permission for transplantation of kidney. 3. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, supports the impugned order by placing reliance upon observations made in the impugned order. 4. I have perused the affidavit filed by the donor before the authority, to which my attention is invited. The donor has (3) stated that the recipient of the kidney is his close friend's son. The donor was residing in the house of patient's father on rent, but has learnt about the melody much later. The donor was interviewed by the respondent no.3 / authority. The appellate authority has gone into all the relevant material and thereafter recorded findings. 5. I do not find any perversity with the approach adopted by the authorities while passing the impugned orders. No case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10899