Sabeena .S vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 208 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 294 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          SABEENA .S,
          AGED 40 YEARS,
          W/O. RASHEED .K.,
          RESIDING AT VAYALIL THARAYIL HOUSE,
          KAATTILKADAVU P.O., AADHINADU SOUTH,
          AADHINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 542

          BY ADVS.
          K.V.JAYADEEP MENON
          T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL)
          P.KRISHNAPRIYA
          JINS.P.JOHN
          AKSHAY SHAJI T.S

RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
          HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

    2     THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR RENAL
          TRANSPLANTATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
          THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
          KALAMASSERY P.O.,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 014

    3     THE LOCAL LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR RENAL TRANSPLANTATION
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/
          MEDICAL DIRECTOR, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MEDICAL DIRECTOR,
          MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, PALLIMUKKU,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682 016

          R3 BY ADV R.S.KALKURA
          SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.294/2022

                                   2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022

The petitioner challenges the non-consideration of

the joint application submitted by the petitioner along with the

patient/recipient for organ transplantation due to the inaction of

the 3rd respondent. The petitioner seeks to declare that the 3 rd

respondent has no authority to call for a police verification

report in an application submitted before the 2 nd respondent

through the 3rd respondent as per Rule 10 of the

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014.

2. The petitioner states that she voluntarily agreed to

donate her kidney to a Chronic Kidney patient named

Mr.Sabeer Poozhikuth, aged 45 years. The petitioner along

with said Mr. Sabeer Poozhikuth submitted a joint application WP(C).No.294/2022

under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act.

The 3rd respondent, however, without processing the

application and forwarding it to the 2 nd respondent-District

Level Authorising Committee, has sought for a police report.

The petitioner would submit that the police officials may take

considerable time in issuing a report and the 3 rd respondent

can very well forward the available documents to the 2 nd

respondent for further processing. The 2nd respondent is

competent to call for police records, if it is necessary, from the

competent authorities. The non-processing of the application

and forwarding the same to the 2 nd respondent is likely to put

the life of a 3rd person into trouble. Therefore, the writ

petitioner seeks appropriate directions from this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd

respondent submitted that when the petitioner submitted

application for organ transplantation, the petitioner was

required to submit certain documents which are extremely

necessary for processing the application. A list of documents WP(C).No.294/2022

required was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has

not produced requisite documents. If the petitioner produces

all the requisite documents, the 3rd respondent will process the

same and forward it to the 2nd respondent within two days,

submitted the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

In view of the submission made on behalf of the 3 rd

respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

petitioner to submit all requisite documents to the 3 rd

respondent immediately. The 3rd respondent shall process the

application and forward the same to the 2 nd respondent within

a period of two days from the date of receipt of necessary

documents. It is made clear that the 3 rd respondent shall not

withhold the processing and forwarding of the application for

the sole reason that a police report is not obtained. It is further

directed that the 2nd respondent shall process the application

on receipt of the same from the 3 rd respondent and take

appropriate decision thereon within a period of three weeks.

The 2nd respondent will be at liberty to call for police records WP(C).No.294/2022

from the competent police authorities, if it is found necessary.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR WP(C).No.294/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 294/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

   Exhibit P1         A   TRUE    PHOTOCOPY     OF  THE    JOINT
                      APPLICATION     IN     FORM-3   OF     THE
                      TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND

TISSUES RULES, 2014, DATED 15.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF TRANSPLANTATION FROM LIVING DONOR UNDER FORM 11 OF THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND TISSUES RULES, 2014 DATED 26.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

   Exhibit P3         A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT
                      DATED   15.12.2021    SUBMITTED   BY   THE
                      PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
   Exhibit P4         A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE

DATED 01.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY CONSTITUENCY.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, MANJERI CONSTITUENCY.