AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Smt.Gouri Balagopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ajith Joy, learned counsel for the third respondent and Smt.Pooja Surendran, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 and 4.
The first petitioner is stated to be ailing from a kidney failure and in need of transplantation. The second petitioner has come forward to donate one of his kidney. An application seeking approval of the afore was filed before the fourth respondent under the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. By Ext.P2 order dated 28.07.2026, the fourth respondent rejected the afore application. Though further appeal is presented, the first respondent, by Ext.P4 order dated 15.09.2026, has rejected the same. It is in such circumstances, the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P2 and P4.
A reading of Ext.P2 order would show that the main reason stated for doubting the connection between the recipient and the donor is with respect to the statement provided by the wife of the recipient. The wife of the recipient pointed out that the first petitioner and the second petitioner met in connection with the work which was undertaken by them – both of them were engaged in interior works. However, the fourth respondent states that there were some discrepancies as regards the number of the partners as well as the employees as pointed out by the wife of the recipient and the donor – the second petitioner while rejecting the application by Ext.P2 order. On account of the afore, the order states that the recipient as well as the donor failed to prove altruistic relationship between them. It is further pointed out that though the recipient and the donor claimed that they were having a relationship between for the last six years, they have failed to produce any photographs in support of it.
An appeal is preferred against the afore order as evidenced by Ext.P3. A perusal of the appeal memorandum shows that sufficient explanation as regards the discrepancies noticed in the original order have been pointed out. However, the impugned order at Ext.P4 has been issued by the first respondent, virtually repeating the allegations contained in the original order at Ext.P2.
This Court is of the opinion that mere discrepancies as regards the workers as well as the partners in the statements of the wife of the first petitioner and the second petitioner cannot, by itself, be a reason for rejecting an approval sought for by the petitioners. Similarly, the petitioners claimed that there was an altruism certificate issued by the Dy.S.P which was also relied upon by the petitioners.
In view of the afore, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the original authority. This is especially so, since no financial involvement has been alleged or proved by the original authority or the appellate authority. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Exts.P2 and P4. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioners afresh, also with reference to the principles laid down by this Court in Shareef M. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 11974]as well as Uvais Muhammed K.C. v. State of Kerala [2025(1) KHC 253], within a period of two weeks from today. Sd/-