SHUBHANGI PRADEEP CHINNAWAR Vs. SATTE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. A very poignant state of affairs surfaces in the matter.

(2.) Notice of petition sent by this court for final disposal and the further notice and/or intimation through e-mail and fax, are served on the Respondent No. 4, yet it has failed to put in appearance on its behalf. This failure to appear before this court in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem, not only impedes the cause of justice and treatment to patient-petitioner affected due to failure of kidney, despite availability of a person who is ready to donate kidney for transplantation in the body of the petitioner.

(3.) It appears that under the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and Rules, 1995, a proposal for transplantation of human organ, in the present case, kidney is to be forwarded through Respondent No. 4 to the authorization committee-respondent No. 3, constituted pursuant to Section 9(4)(b) of said enactment.