RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

Preface 1. The petitioners seek to assail order dated 25/27.07.2017, passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 22.11.2017, passed by respondent no.2.

1.1 Respondent no.1 is the Authorization Committee constituted pursuant to a notification issued by the Central Government in that behalf in consonance with the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as the "1994 Act"). Respondent no.2 is the Appellate Authority, also constituted under the 1994 Act.

1.2 Petitioner no.1 is the donee, that is, the person who wishes to receive an organ, while petitioner no.2 is the prospective donor.

2. The petitioners, as indicated above, are aggrieved by the fact that the authorities below have failed to apply their minds to relevant factors in coming to the conclusion that organ transplantation cannot be permitted in this case.

Background

3. In this context, it would be important to note the following facts which are necessary for adjudication of the matter.

3.1 Petitioner no.1 is an End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) patient; which in lay terms means that both her kidneys have stopped functioning. Petitioner no.1 is currently on dialysis, which is taken by her twice a week.

3.2 It is averred that in past one year petitioner no.1 was being treated in a hospital, located in Bareilly; the name and particulars of this hospital are not alluded to in the writ petition. The record, though, shows that petitioner no.1 indicated to the doctors at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi (SGRH) that she was put on dialysis at Sai Hospital situate in Bareilly.

3.3 Prior to this, petitioner no.1 was being treated at SGRH. Petitioner no.1 was evidently discharged on 24.5.2015, and thereafter, her follow up treatment was being carried out in SGRH OPD, till December, 2016.

3.4 It appears that in and about September 2016 a decision was taken by and on behalf of petitioner no.1 to seek permission for transplantation of a kidney, which petitioner no.2 had offered to donate. Necessary statutory forms i.e., Form No.3, 18 and 20 were filed. The forms are dated 14.09.2016.

3.5 In this behalf, an application was also made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly for issuance of a character certificate qua petitioner no.2. The concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, issued a certificate on 06.11.2016 which is indicative of the fact that in so far as petitioner no.2 was concerned, no case was pending or registered against her in any court of law.

3.6 Likewise, an application, it appears, was also made to the District Magistrate, Janpad, Bareilly. The record shows that the District Magistrate had submitted a report dated 8.11.2016 to the Medical Superintendent, SGRH, to the effect that an inquiry had been made as to whether any pressure had been brought on petitioner no.2 to donate her kidney to petitioner no.1. The report concludes that the enquiry revealed that petitioner no.2, of her own volition, had offered to donate her kidney as she had known petitioner no.1 for the past 10 to 12 years. A copy of the enquiry report dated 15.02.2016 was, apparently, enclosed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly, for reference, with his report, which was submitted to SRGH.

3.7 On 08.02.2017, petitioner no.1 received a recommendatory letter from the treating doctor as well.

3.8 Furthermore, besides the aforesaid statutory forms, to which I have made reference, on 25.11.2016, the husband of petitioner no.1 made a formal application to the Medical Superintendent, SGRH for granting approval for transplantation of kidney. The application adverted to the fact that none of his near relatives were in a position to donate a kidney either on account of lack of compatibility or due to debilitative health parameters. It was further stated that, one, Ms. Bhagwan Devi i.e., petitioner no.2 had agreed to donate her kidney to petitioner no.1. A reference was made to the blood parameters of petitioner no.2 and also to the fa