AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S.Dixit, J
The shorn of thickness of the petition book and the pleading as such, learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the urgency involve and argues that the immediate transplantation of kidney has to take place; that the second petitioner being a relative of the first petitioner - expectant donee has entered into an arrangement in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the matter is now remanded to the third respondent-Committee and in view of the urgency the Committee needs to accomplish the consideration thereof within a shortest possible period and on a warfooting.
Learned HCGP on request having accepted notice for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, notice to respondent No.3 being dispensed with, submits that in matters of this kind, ordinarily, the Court should not interfere and it should be left to the discretion of the third respondent - Committee, which is an expert body.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court broadly agrees with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners; the contention of learned HCGP that Court should keep away from such matters is bit difficult to countenance since, life & limb of first petitioner i.e., the expectant kidney donee are at stake. In a way, case of the first petitioner falls under Article 21 of Constitution of India and therefore, the Writ Court is duty bound to grant indulgence especially when the prayer is innocuous.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter does not involve any elements of Commerce in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU 2005 (11) SCC 122 and another in W.P.No.2574/2012 between PARVEEN BEGAM & OTHERS VS. APELLATE AUTHORITY & OTHERS, in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court disposed off on 15.05.2012, is placed on record.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the third respondent to take the decision on the remand within a period of one week.
The learned HCGP is requested to inform this order to the third respondent - Committee to whom notice is dispensed with because of the innocuous prayer in the writ petition.
It is open to the petitioners to present a downloaded copy of this order to the third respondent-Committee for immediate process of the matter.
No costs.