ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to grant the approval for Renal transplantation (Kidney) and to expedite the process of Kidney transplantation between petitioners No.1 and 2 without any further delay to save the life of the petitioner No.1, who is on the deathbed.

2. Vide order dated 30.8.2022, the respondent No.3 was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of seven days. Keeping in mind the pronouncement made by this Court as well as provision of law on the subject and take a decision in respect of the Kidney transplantation between petitioners No.1 and 2 and submits its report before this Court on or before the next date of hearing i.e. how the matter is taken for hearing today. However, respondents have not filed the report as directed by this Court. Looking to the urgency shown by the petitioners, this case is being taken up for hearing and is being disposed of.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner No.1 is on deathbed fighting for his life due to failure of Kidney. The petitioner No.2 has readily agreed to donate the Kidney to petitioner No.1. Earlier, the claim of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 19.5.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners No.1 and 2 again file an application jointly before respondent No.5 but the same is still pending, no decision whatsoever has been taken.

4. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 was examined and advised to undergo Kidney transplantation, whereby all his blood relatives were examined, but none of them were found to be medically fit and competent to donate Kidney to him. However, the Kidney of petitioner No.2 was found to medically fit for the purpose of transplantation. A detailed medical examination by the specialist doctors were carried out on the petitioners No.1 and 2 and there is no objection from any one for donating the Kidney. In such a situation, the authorities are bound to follow the mandate of "The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994" and "The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014" (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inaction on the part of respondent No.3 for not deciding the application shows the inhuman approach. Once the hospital examined the health condition of the petitioners No.1 and 2 have arrived on the conclusion that the petitioner No.2 is medically fit to donate the Kidney as well as the recipient i.e. petitioner No.1 is also fit to accept the Kidney, not grant of permission of Kidney transplantation would be fatal and arbitrary particularly when the petitioner is on the deathbed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that some further time may be granted to produce the report of the authorization of the Committee.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The Parliament has enacted the Act known as 'the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994" and have made the rules thereunder known as "the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014", hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. Rule 7 sub rule (3) clause (iv) and clause (ix) provides as under :-

"(3) When the proposed donor and the recipient are not near relatives, the Authorisation Committee shall,-

-----

(iv) examine the documentary evidence of the link, e.g. proof that they have lived together, etc.;

----

(ix) ensure that the near relative or if near relative is not available, any adult person related to donor by blood or marriage of the proposed unrelated donor is interviewed regarding awareness about his or her intention to donate an organ or tissue, the authenticity of the link between the donor and the recipient, and the reasons for donation, and any strong views or disagreement or objection of suc