Telangana High Court
P. Francis Ravindranath vs State Of Telangana on 30 July, 2021
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION No.11512 OF 2021
ORDER:
1 The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare
the communication bearing Rc.No.415/MAK/2021 dated 07.4.2021
issued by the fourth respondent, who is the Chairman of the third
respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the order of this
Court dated 30.3.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.P.No.4166 of 2021
and consequently to set aside the impugned communication issued
by the fourth respondent.
2 The case of the petitioner is that the first petitioner has been
suffering from hypertension for the last 30 years and the same had
developed into a complication involving renal failure in both his
kidneys. He was recommended by his doctors at the Asian Institute
of Nephrology and Urology, Hyderabad to undergo another kidney
transplantation and he has been in urgent need of it since March
2020. The second petitioner has a long association with the first
petitioner. The first petitioner made an application through AINU,
Hyderabad to the third respondent committee seeking approval to
permit the second petitioner to donate his kidney to him. The third
respondent, by way of proceedings in Rc.No.50688/MAK/2020 dated
17.12.2020 rejected the application of the first petitioner on the
ground that it was not convinced with regard to the altruistic nature
of donation. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners made a representation
dated 19.12.2020 to the second respondent requesting him to take
into consideration the application of the first petitioner to undergo
kidney transplantation.
3 Since no action has been taken, the petitioners filed
W.P.No.2808 of 2021 wherein this Court directed the second
respondent to decide the representation of the petitioners within a
period of two working days and further they were granted liberty to
sensitize the second respondent with any judgment or any other
material in their favour. However, due to the first petitioner suffering
stroke, which resulted in implantation of cardiac stents, he was
unable to attend the hearing schedule at the office of the second
respondent, however the wife of the first petitioner and the second
petitioner attended.
4 Thereafter, the second respondent, vide
Rc.No.50688/MAK/2020 dated 15.02.2021 communicated the
rejection of the appeal of the petitioners once again holding that the
altruistic nature of the donation was not established. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioners filed W.P.No.4166 of 2021. The petitioners
filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 in the above Writ Petition praying this court to
permit the second petitioner to donate his kidney to the first
petitioner. This Court vide order dated 30.3.2021 permitted the
second petitioner to do so and directed the third respondent
committee to look into the statutory requirement under Rule 7 (3) (vii)
in the notification dated 27.3.2014 issued by the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, whereby it was required to evaluate the financial
status of the donor as well as the recipient.
5 The petitioners approached the offices of the fourth respondent
who is the Chairman of the third respondent Committee submitting
the requisite statements of their assets and liabilities. The fourth
respondent who is the Chairman of the third respondent committee
vide proceedings Rc.No.415/MAK/2021 dated 07.4.2021, while
referring to the documents submitted on 03.4.2021, observed that
there was no clarity with regard to the income proof of the donor i.e.
the second petitioner and requested the petitioners to submit the
proper income certificate for the previous three financial years along
with bank statement of the second petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.
6 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Pleader for Medical and Family Welfare.
7 Admittedly, by proceedings dated 07.4.2021, the respondents
asked the petitioners to submit proper income certificate for the
previous three financial years along with bank statement of the
second petitioner. Instead of furnishing those documents, the
petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.
8 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ
Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the
concerned authority along with the documents which they sought for
clarification, as directed. On furnishing the same, the concerned
authority shall take a decision forthwith. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
__________________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date: 30.7.2021
C.C. Today
B/o Kvsn
