RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Rajinder Kumar, has approached this Court through the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated September 27, 2004 and October 14/27, 2004 passed by respondent No. 3, Chairman, Authorisation Committee, and respondent No. 2, Secretary Medical Education and Research, respectively. The petitioner has pleaded that he is suffering from a complete kidney failure. He was advised the transplantation of the aforesaid organ. On an earlier occasion, wife of the petitioner had donated her one kidney. However, the aforesaid transplantation of the organ was not successful and, therefore, the petitioner was medically advised to go in for a fresh transplantation of the kidney. The petitioner, found a willing donor, Jeewan Sharma. As per the requirement of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act"), in case the donor of a human organ is not related to the recipient, approval of the Authorisation committee constituted under the Act is required. Since the aforesaid proposed donor, Jeewan Sharma was not related to the petitioner, therefore, necessary permission from the Authorisation Committee was sought by the petitioner and the donor. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner as well as the donor filed their respective affidavits. Along with that, various medical test reports of the petitioner were also placed on record, along with certificates issued by the surgeon who was to conduct surgery upon the petitioner. An affidavit of shrimati Rita Sharma, wife of the proposed donor was also filed. A meeting of the authorisation committee was held on September 27, 2004. The Authorisation Committee found that the proposed donor and his wife were not related to the petitioner, in any manner, but were working as servants in the house of the petitioner. On that basis, it was inferred that since there was a great economic disparity between the recipient and the donor, doner and his wife being servants of the recipient's family, "the money involvement cannot be ruled out". Accordingly, the request of the petitioner seeking the approval was rejected by the Authorisation Committee. A copy of the aforesaid minutes of the meeting of Authorisation Committee dated September 27, 2004 is appended as Annexure P/12 with the present petition.

(2.) THE petitioner approached Secretary, Medical Education and research, respondent No. 2, by way of appeal under Section 17 of the act. It was submitted by the petitioner that his wife Rakesh Kumari had already donated her one kidney in the past and, therefore, none of the close relatives of the recipient was in a position to donate the kidney. The affidavits of the proposed donor as well as his wife were also placed on the record. The matter was considered by respondent no. 2 and the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by making the following observations :

(3.) A copy of order dated October 14/27, 2004 has been appended as annexure P/13 with the petition. The petitioner has impugned the aforesaid orders Annexures P/12 and P/13 and has approached this court through the present petition.