High CourtsSingle Bench

Jumameeran vs District Level Authorization Committee For Transplantation Of Human Organs

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 KL CK 0251

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.Nagaresh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 10485 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 379 words

N. Nagaresh, J

1.

This  writ  petition  is  filed  seeking  the  following relief:-

“Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate and effective steps to issue approval for unrelated kidney transplantation as per Exts.P8 and P9 applications, within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.”

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though an application had been preferred before the 2nd respondent for effecting an unrelated kidney transplant, it has not been forwarded by the 2nd respondent on the ground that it is not accompanied by a Certificate from the 3rd respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the verification by the 3rd respondent is not a condition precedent for forwarding of the application and the 1st respondent, who is the Authority under the enactment, can call for reports from the 3rd respondent, if required.

4.

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioners have not submitted application with supporting documents to the 2nd respondent. The counsel for the petitioners, however, refuted the said contention and states that though the application was submitted, the officials under the 2nd respondent refused to accept the application in the absence of a court order.

5.

Having considered the contentions advanced and having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am of the opinion that the application preferred by the petitioners is liable to be considered expeditiously by the 1st respondent in accordance with law.

6.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to forward Exts.P8 and P9 applications to the 1st respondent for consideration, at the earliest, if the petitioners resubmit the same with supporting documents. The 1st respondent shall conduct all due verifications including by reference to the 3rd respondent, if found necessary, and shall pass appropriate orders after considering all relevant aspects of the matter. Orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.