JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment in W.P(C). No.151 of 2021 dated 22.2.2021.

2. Short facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows:

1st Petitioner is a chronic kidney patient and the 2nd petitioner voluntarily agreed to donate her one organ to her. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a joint application under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act for consideration. But the Local Level Commissioner for Renal Transplantation/3rd respondent herein has called for a police report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha/4th respondent herein, without submitting the same to the District Level Authorisation Committee for Renal Transplantation/2nd respondent herein, who is the statutory authority under the Act to consider the application. Thereupon the 4th respondent submitted a report raising a suspicion solely based on the fact that the donor is coming from a poor family and he suspected that she has any other motive, since she has submitted two applications for donating the kidney in recent time. The real fact is that the donor met the 1st petitioner surprisingly, at the hospital in Ernakulam, when she came there for the pre-transplant evaluation for her earlier recipient. However, due to the mismatching in the diagnostic, the said proposal was rejected and the 2nd petitioner was awaiting the report in the hospital. In that moment, surprisingly she met the first petitioner there and when she came to know about her pathetic condition and ill-health, the second petitioner voluntarily came forward to donate her kidney to the first petitioner, since she has some personal acquaintance and sympathy to her. The family members of the donor have also no objection in the same. Therefore, the present evaluation that the donor has any other motive behind this kidney donation is meaningless and purely based on assumption. It is also a fact that there happened a typographical error while issuing a Certificate by the Local Body. Unfortunately, the President of the Ongallur Grama Panchayat, while noting his personal acquaintance mistakenly has typewritten as 6 years instead of 6 months. This minor mistake was taken as a reason for rejecting the joint application by the second respondent. Even though they clarified the same by submitting another certificate to the second respondent, it was not considered. The 2nd respondent rejected the application without considering the materials which are available on record to indicate that there is no commercial interest between the parties. The act of the 2nd respondent is inhuman.

3. 1st petitioner is now a chronic kidney patient of stage V and is on regular Hemodialysis treatment 3 times in a week and waiting for renal transplantation. As a consequence of the rejection of application for renal transplantation, life of the 1st petitioner is in oscillation. Hence the petitioners seek for a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the joint application of the petitioner with all documents considering the deteriorating health condition of the 1st petitioner.

4. Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

i. Declare that the 3rd respondent has no authority to call for a police verification report in an application submitted before the 2nd respondent, through the 3rd respondent as per Rule 10 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014.

ii. Call for the records leading to Exhibit -P8 Rejection of Authorisation Certificate of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as well as Exhibit -P7 police report by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction

iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 joint application of the petitioners at the earliest possible time and accord sanction to the petitioners for renal transplantation.

5. After considering the submissions of the writ petitione