KIRANLAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The clearance to be given by the 5th respondent/State Level Authorisation Committee for Renal Transplantation under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 ('Act' in short) and Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995 ('Rules' in short) is the subject matter involved. The challenge stands is more as to the vires of the Rules 4A(4)(v) or/and Rule 6F(d)(iv) and seeks for a declaration that the conviction of 8th respondent/donor in Dime No. 258/01 of Payyangadi Police Station in respect of offence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (pending in appeal before the Sessions Court, Thalasserry) is not an impediment for giving clearance for the kidney transplantation surgery to be performed in the 6th respondent's hospital.

(2.) This matter was heard yesterday and since the Court felt the need to have some more clarification, it was posted today as "to be spoken to". Heard Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vijayaraghavan, the State Attorney on behalf of the concerned respondents, particularly, respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 and also Mr. R.S. Kalkura on behalf of the 7th respondent Hospital, at length. It is stated that there is no much factual dispute and that the issue is more related to the scope and object of the relevant Act/Rules and also as to the contents /observation in Ext. P16 Certificate issued by the Asst Superintendent of Police, i.e., the 4th respondent, referring to the conviction of the donor in the Sessions case.

(3.) The petitioner, a minor boy aged 15 years represented by his father Kishore Kumar, is suffering from serious renal problems. It has been identified that kidney transplantation is essential to save the patient. Transplantation of human organs is governed by the aforesaid Act/Rules and the first respondent has infact issued Ext. P1 Circular on 16.8.2011, specifying the particulars of documents to be produced for kidney transplantation, one among which is a certificate to be issued from the office of the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner contends that, all such documents as required under the relevant provisions of law and as specified, in particular Ext. P1 Circular, have been procured and submitted before the concerned authority along with Ext. P4 application. However, no clearance has been given by the 5th respondent/State Level Authorisation Committee constituted in this regard and the delay is causing a threat to the life of the petitioner, which made him to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition for appropriate reliefs.