Kerala High Court
Sheeba vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WA NO. 640 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.12100 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHEEBA, AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT PANARATH PADEETTATHIL HOUSE,
THAZHAVA P.O., THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THAZHAVA
VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -
690523
2 JAFAR SADIK C, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. SHARAFUDHEEN, CHERIYANDI VEEDU, PADINJARETHARA,
THARUVANA P.O., PERUNNANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VELLAMUNDA
VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN -
673575
BY ADVS.
K.V.JAYADEEP MENON
P.KRISHNAPRIYA
T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR RENAL
TRANSPLANTATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE
PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KALAMASSERY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683104
GP SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.05.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 640 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN.J
We propose to be very brief in our
observations in the judgment because our intent
is to remit the matter to the District Level
Authorisation Committee (DLAC), for fresh
consideration.
2. We will explain why we have taken this
view presently.
3. The appellants had approached this
Court, filing WP(C)No.12100/2024, challenging
the order of the "DLAC", rejecting their request
for permission for the second among them to
offer his organ to the first among them, merely
saying that there was "discrepancy between their
statements and produced certificates"(sic). They
assert that they have not been afforded any
WA NO. 640 OF 2024
cogent reason by the DLAC, as to why their
application for permission for organ transplant
has been rejected. But, when the learned Single
Judge of this Court considered the matter, the
impugned judgment was delivered, noticing that
there is an alternative remedy against the
aforesaid order; thus directing them to invoke
the same within certain specified timelines.
4. Smt.P.Krishnapriya - learned counsel for
the appellants, vehemently argued that, even if
her clients are to invoke the alternative remedy
as reserved to them by the learned Single Judge,
it would be facile and fruitless because, the
assailed order of the DLAC, namely Ext.P11, does
not cite any reason which could enable them to
make their objections before the Appellate
Authority. She argued that, in any event, an
appeal in such circumstances, would be totally
WA NO. 640 OF 2024
redundant; and hence, prayed that this appeal be
allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader -
Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, however, submitted
that the learned Single Judge has acted without
error, in having issued the impugned judgment
because, when there is an alternative remedy, it
is well settled that the extra ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, could not have been
invoked. He, however, left it to this Court to
issue appropriate orders; but arguing that the
"DLAC" had considered every relevant and germane
aspects in its proper perspective, while
entering into its conclusion, as stated in
Ext.P11.
6. As we have already said above, this is a
case where the jurisdictional "DLAC" has issued
WA NO. 640 OF 2024
Ext.P11 rejecting the request of the appellants,
but without assigning any reason whatsoever. This
is manifest from the contents of Ext.P11, which
merely say that, since certain discrepancies were
"seen" in the statements of the parties and the
documents produced by them, the application
deserves only to be rejected. As rightly argued
by Smt.Krishnapriya, the appellants, obviously,
do not know why their application has been
rejected, since any reason for the same, or the
foundational cause for the decision of the "DLAC"
is absent in Ext.P11.
7. In such circumstances, even if it is
taken that there is an alternative remedy - which
is virtually admitted - it would be imprudent to
ask the appellants to invoke the same, when they
do not know what exactly has been stated against
them by the "DLAC". When the order is laconic and
WA NO. 640 OF 2024
without any reasonable explanation for the
decision arrived therein, we cannot countenance
the stand of the respondents, that the appellants
should invoke their alternative remedy.
8. We are guided to the afore view also
because of the various precedents produced by the
appellants before this Court, including Ext.P10,
wherein, this Court has intervened in exceptional
circumstances - wherever it was found warranted -
even at the stage where orders of the "DLAC" were
under challenge.
9. As far as this case is concerned, as we
have already said above and merely for the
purpose of restatement, Ext.P11 does not contain
any reason which would enable the appellants to
invoke their appellate remedy effectively; and we
are, therefore, of the firm view that the matter
should engage the consideration of the said
WA NO. 640 OF 2024
Committee once again.
In the afore circumstances, we allow this
writ appeal and set aside the judgment of the
learned Single Judge; consequentially, vacating
Ext.P11, with a resultant direction to the "DLAC"
to reconsider the matter; thus culminating in an
appropriate fresh order and necessary action
thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not
later than two weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
SAS
