SURESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Indian Parliament passed the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 to provide for the regulation of removal, storage and transplantation of human organs for therapeutic purposes and for prevention of commercial dealings in human organs. After the said enactment vide notification-dated 23.2.1995, the Act was implemented in the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) AFTER the said enactment vide notification-dated 23.2.1995, the Act was implemented in the State of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Director of Health Services as the appropriate authority vide notification-dated 23.3.1995. The petitioner who claims to be a life member of the Bank Association of India and petitioner no.2, who is an honorary member of the multi organ harvesting Aid Network Mohan Foundation, a non-governmental organization based in Chennai have approached this court to pray for a relief claiming issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to constitute the committees and issue guidelines under the provisions of the Act and also that the hospitals which do not have an organ transplantation facility should be granted registration under the Act, diagnosis and first brain death declaration to be made mandatory and have made various other suggestions and which according to them would help in achieving the various objects as well as would serve a larger public interest. There is no doubt that certain useful and valuable suggestions have been made in the petition. Various facets and methodologies involved in acquiring and transplantation of human organs have been dealt with by the petitioners, some of them can be referred to as under:

(3.) THE suggestions made in the writ petition may require consideration by the competent authorities. The Court is not the appropriate forum and has no technical know-how to examine the need for introduction, direction or the systems suggested in the writ petition. The expert bodies have been constituted under the provisions of the Act and such expert bodies are expected to perform their duties. It is a settled principle of law that the authorities, which are entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the methods and performance of duties as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, should be left free to make such recommendations or constitute such Committees as may be necessary for achieving the object. It may not be permissible nor possible for the Courts to sit as appellate expert bodies and venture upon issuing a direction for incorporation of certain measures and guidelines, which are required to be followed by the expert bodies. These principles have been often stated by the Supreme Court in its different judgments and useful reference can be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Etc. Vs. B.S. Mahajan Etc. JT 1989 (4) SC 487 where even in the case of selection of a candidate to a post by expert bodies, the Court held as under:-