( 1 ) RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. L. Pandya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 19th May, 2006 passed by Authorisation Committee as well as against the order dated 21st July, 2006 passed by Appellate Authority, which are at Annexures "e" and "g" respectively to the memo of the petition.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner was examined by Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital and report given by the doctor, to the effect that the petitioner requires kidney transplantation. The kidney of the petitioner was not working properly, and therefore, the petitioner had applied to get kidney from one Vijaykumar Dilipbhai Choksi, who out of love and affection towards the petitioner is ready to donate the kidney to the petitioner and for that application has been preferred under Sec. 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1994" ). It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Authorisation committee constituted under the Act, 1994 has not properly appreciated this fact and has dismissed the application vide order dated 19th May, 2006. This order is patently de hors the provision of the Act, 1994. The reasons advanced in the impugned order is that Vijaybhai is not a relative of the present petitioner, and therefore, application is refused. This application was preferred under Sec. 9 (3) of the Act, 1994. A donor by the reason of affection or attachment towards the recipient or for any other special reason can donate his kidney to the petitioner. This fact has not been properly appreciated by the Committee and extraneous reason has been given by the Committee, and therefore, the order passed on 19th May, 2006 passed by Authorisation Committee (Annexure "e" to the memo of the petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an appeal was preferred under Sec. 17 of the Act, 1994 before the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Act and wrongly approved the order passed by the Authorisation Committee. Opportunity of being heard was not given by the Appellate Authority to the petitioner, and therefore, also the orders passed by both the authorities below deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Authorisation Committee for a fresh hearing under Sec. 9 (3) of the Act, 1994.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 is supporting the case of the present petitioner. It is stated that the application preferred under Sec. 9 (3) of the Act, 1994, which ought to be in the statutory format and which must be joint application by donor and recipient of the kidney.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that in the facts of the present case, no such joint application has been preferred as envisaged under the Act, 1994. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has drawn attention of this Court on the judgment delivered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh and Anr. v. State of T. N. and Ors. , reported in 2005 (11)SCC 122 and especially Para 14 thereof and has pointed out that the authorities below have to consider the income particulars for previous three final years and their vocations. Though, clear mandate has been given by the Hon ble Supreme court, none of the below authorities have appreciated these facts.

( 6 ) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. L. Pandya on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that there is no error whatsoever committed by the Authorisation Committee as we