AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Smt. Deepa Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt.Pooja Surendran, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
The first petitioner is a kidney patient requiring transplantation. The second petitioner has come foward to donate one of his kidneys. The application seeking approval of the transplantation under the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, is rejected by Ext.P7 order issued by the third respondent herein. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P7 that the petitioners are before this Court.
A perusal of Ext.P7 would show that the claim has been considered and rejected by the said order. Against Ext.P7, the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal under the statute. Hence, it is for the petitioners to file an appeal against the afore order. This Court do not find any reason for entertaining this writ petition at this stage. However, taking note of the submissions made by Smt. Deepa Narayanan that the first petitioner's condition is critical, the writ petition would stand disposed of as under:
If the petitioners prefer an appeal against Ext.P7 within two days from today, the appellate authority to consider the same and dispose it of strictly in accordance with law, within a further period of seven days thereafter.
While disposing of the appeal as above, the appellate authority also to take note of 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].