The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a thorough inquiry and consideration of the petitioner's urgent need for kidney transplantation, in accordance with the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994.

This petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned minutes of the respondent in Ref.No.19222/G6/2008 dated 10.01.2008 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to undergo kidney transplantation by accepting the donation of a kidney from the donor mentioned therein.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a lawyer practising in District and Sessions Court at Nagercoil, living with his wife, two children and aged parents; he has been affected with chronic renal failure and has been advised to undergo kidney transplantation which is the only option for prolonging his life; he is also undergoing regular dialysis; he is not in a position to obtain donation from his near relatives for the reasons that his wifes kidney does not match on account of the difference in their respective blood groups and his parents are very old while his children are too young and he is the only son to his parents; thus, none of his listed near relatives are available for donation of the organ; this being the position, he approached one G.Kumar @ Sivakumar of Sundarkudi, Ariyalur Taluk, Perambalur District who has come forward to donate his kidney; he became known to him through Dr.Godwin Prem, who is working as Reader in Bishop Heber College, Tiruchirapalli; both of them underwent the necessary tests at ABC Hospital, Tirchirapalli and when the process was half way, the said hospital had some temporary registration issues to be resolved; as a result, he was constrained to institute Writ Proceedings before this Court. Thereafter, Writ Appeal No.168 of 2007 has been preferred in which, this Court, by order dated 24.5.2007, after considering the case in detail, has passed the following order:

"Even though Dr.Jeyasekharan Hospital and Nursing Home, K.P.Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, is not a party and has not been heard, we have been told that such hospital has been informally consulted and it has got no objection. In view of the urgency of the matter, it is expected that such Hospital will act on the basis of the records which were placed before other authorities including respondent No.3, ABC Hospital."

3. While that being the position, the petitioner has applied to the respondent seeking approval for transplantation and the respondent, in its decision dated 10.01.2008, has rejected the petitioners request for obtaining donation of organ from the said Kumar. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this petition on various grounds, the main being that:

a. the decision of the respondent is arbitrary inasmuch as the authorities concerned have examined both the petitioner as well as the donor and there is no basis to show that there is any financial bonding between the petitioner and the donor.

b. the reasons adduced are against the provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 ("the Act" for short) and the rules framed thereunder and are also in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. On behalf of the respondent, an affidavit has been filed which is sworn by the Dean, Madurai Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. The Dean is one of the Committee Members and the Chairman of the Respondent Committee.

5. In the affidavit referred to above, it is stated that the petitioner as well as the donor have been orally examined by the Committee Members, viz., Revenue Divisional Officer-Madurai, Assistant Commissioner of Police-Madurai, Joint Director of Medical Services-Madurai and the Deponent namely, the Dean of Madurai Rajaji Hospital; during the enquiry, it was found that the donor is very young and he is not a relative to the petitioner and both of them know each other only for the last two years and suspected financial bonding was involved and therefore, as per the provisions of the Act, the Committee has rightly rejected the petiti