ORDER

1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

“i. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents authority to grant approval for renal transplantation and expedite the process of kidney transplantation between petitioner No.1 and 2, without any further delay to save the life of the petitioner No.1.

ii. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be please to set aside impugned letter dated 13.9.2022 issued by respondent No.5 and direct respondent No.2 hospital to expedite the process of kidney transplantation between petitioner No.1 & 2 without any further delay to save the life of petitioner No.1 in the interest of justice.

iii. The Hon’ble Court may be please to call for relevant records for its kind perusal.

iv. The Hon’ble Court may please to grant another relief deemed fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. No.18311/2022 and this Court vide order dated 30.8.2022 had passed the following order:

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

The petitioner No.2 is ready to donate the kidney to petitioner No.1 for which they have completed the requisite formalities; but, the authorities are not granting them No Objection Certificate for the reason that they are not blood relatives.

The application filed by the petitioner is pending before the respondent No.5 which was filed on 30.6.2022; however, no decision has been taken till date. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under such circumstances this Court in W.P.No.6141/2021 and W.P.No.9668/2019 had directed the authorities to carry out the exercise of transplantation of kidney.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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 such of such kind shall also be recorded and taken note of".

Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of the Rules as well as the judgment passed by this Court, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of seven days keeping in mind the pronouncements made by this Court as well as the provision of law on the subject and take a decision in respect of kidney transplantation between petitioners No.1 and 2 and submit its report before this Court before the next date of hearing.

List this case on 8.9.2022 along with the report.

Certified copy today.”

3. From the above order, it is evident that the respondent No.3 was directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of seven days keeping in mind the pronouncements made by this Court as well as the