SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31284

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
ABDUL GAFOOR K.K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 16179/2024



Police verification is not mandatory unless the DLAC doubts the authenticity of the application; it should expedite the process in urgent medical cases.

Headnote:

Transplantation - Kidney Transplant - Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 - Summary of Acts and Sections Discussed

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to submit a joint application for a kidney transplant, but the 3rd respondent refused to accept it without a Police Clearance Certificate, prompting the petitioners to approach the court for relief.

Issues: Whether the 3rd respondent can refuse to accept the application for kidney transplantation due to lack of a Police Clearance Certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the necessity of a Police Clearance Certificate should be assessed by the DLAC based on the specific circumstances of the case, avoiding undue delays in urgent medical situations.

Final Decision: The writ petition is ordered to be processed without unnecessary delays under specified conditions.

JUDGEMENT

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept and forward Ext.P2 to the 2nd respondent.

2. The 1st petitioner is a Stage V Chronic Kidney Disease patient waiting for kidney transplantation. The 2nd petitioner who is a close family friend of the 1st petitioner has voluntarily consented to give his kidney to the 1st petitioner. According to the petitioners, they have prepared Ext.P2 joint application in Form No.11 supported by all relevant documents for submission before the 3rd respondent as prescribed in the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. But, the 3rd respondent is refusing to accept and forward their joint application to the 2nd respondent – District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) on the ground of non production of Police Clearance Certificate ('PCC') from the 4th respondent. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Heard Adv.Amalendun.S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.R.S. Kalkura, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Adv.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The counsel submitted that the health condition of the 1st petitioner is deteriorating day by day and it became urgent to conduct Renal Transplantation at the earliest to save his life. The learned counsel for petitioners relied on the dictums laid down in Shoukath Ali Pullikuzhiyil & Another v. District Level Authorization Committee and Others [ 2017 (3) KHC 259 ] and Soubiya v. District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Ernakulam [ 2023 (6) KHC 293 ].

5. In Shoukath Ali (supra), it was held that verification through police as a routine manner in all cases should generally be avoided and if Authorization Committee doubts genuineness of claims or bona fides of persons or genuineness and bona fides of the documents produced, verification through police can be ordered. In Soubiya (supra), it was held that the question whether police clearance certificate is necessary or not should be left to DLAC.

In the light of the dictum laid down in the above decisions, this writ petition is ordered in the following manner:

    (a) The 3rd respondent – The Local Level Committee for Renal Transplantation of the Hospital concerned will forward the applications of the petitioners along with all necessary documents, except 'Certificate of Altruism', to the 2nd respondent– DLAC. It shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
    (b) On the applications reaching the 2nd respondent - DLAC, its competent authority will notify the petitioners and inform them whether they have to obtain a 'Certificate of Altruism” from the concerned Police Authority.
    (c) If the DLAC finds that no such certificate is required in this case, they will complete the processes, leading to necessary permissions to be granted to the petitioners, within a period of one month thereafter.
    (d) However, if on the contrary, the DLAC is to find that 'Certificate of Altruism' is required to be obtained by the petitioners, they will intimate them of such within a period of two weeks from the date on which they receive applications from the 3rd respondent; upon which, the petitioners will be required to obtain the same and produce it before the said Authority, as per law.
    (e) On the afore being done, the DLAC will take a final decision on the petitioners' request, within a period of one month from the date on which such Certificate is produced.
    (f) If the 2nd respondent calls upon the petitioners to obtain a 'Certificate of Altruism', the 4th respondent–Deputy Superintendent of Police, or such other competent authority will act upon the applications for such to be made before them; and will issue necessary certificates without any avoidable delay, but not later than two weeks from the date on which it is received by them, after making all necessary enquiries.
    Writ petit
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top