S MALLIGAMMA ALIAS MALLIGAVVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first appellant is aged about 50 years and suffering from suffering from chromic renal failure from the year 2003 and she is on dialysis twice in a week. In addition to renal failure, the first appellant is suffering from hypertension diabetes. As per Annexure-'a' dated 15. 7. 2004, the Doctors advised the first appellant to undergo Kidney Transplantation at the earliest. Further, it is the case of first appellant that her blood group is 'o' positive, whereas the blood group of first appellant's husband, three daughters and two sons are 'b' positive as per Annexure 'b' to 'b5' and do not match with the blood group of first appellant.

(2.) THE second appellant is aged about 32 years, married to Mr. Shivenanjaiah having a, daughter, aged bout. 12 years and a son aged about 10 years. The second appellant is a house wife and her blood group is 'o' Positive. The second appellant through her husband and, his relatives are closely known to the family of first appellant. The second appellant out of her free and out of love and affection has come forward, to donate one Kidney to the first appellant. Both the appellant approached the Committee to grant permission to undergo kidney transplantation as required under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. The second respondent-Committee after recording the statement of appellants and of the basis of the material on record rejected the application of the appellants vide its order dated 17. 8. 2004, as per, Annexure 'd'. Aggrieved by the rejection order Annexure 'd', the appellants filed W. P. Nos. 35640-35641/2004 before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 15. 10. 2004 dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence these appeals by the aggrieved appellants.

(3.) SRI Ashok Haranahalli, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the report of Police and scrutinized the evidence of parties as if it is a civil suit. It is further contended that more number of donors including the second appellant are from Ramanagram Taluk itself shall not be a ground to reject the prayer of appellants. The rejection of the prayer of appellants on the ground that they belong to different castes is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is contended that the learned Single Judge is not right in directing an inquiry into the matter by the Director General of Police.