IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 8261 OF 2025 PETITIONERS:

1 MOYTHUPPU MUSLIYAR AGED 67 YEARS S/O AHAMMAD KUTTY, MANGADAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM, MANNARCAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679513

2 NEETHU G AGED 28 YEARS W/O. SUMESH, RESIDING AT NEETHU BHAVAN HOUSE, K.S. PURAM P.O., ADINAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690544 BY ADVS.

K.T.SIDHIQ APPU AJITH RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT ROOM NO. 603 ANNEX-1 GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

3 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, H.M.T COLONY PO KALAMASSERY KOCHI, PIN - 683503 OTHER PRESENT:

GOVERNMETN PLEADER- SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2025

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext. P4 order passed by the second respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners against Ext. P2 order passed by the third respondent, seeking permission for organ transplantation.

2. The first petitioner is suffering from chronic kidney disease. The first petitioner has been advised to undergo kidney transplantation. The second petitioner, who is a family friend and a former neighbour of the first petitioner, has volunteered to donate one of her kidneys to the first petitioner. The petitioners had submitted a joint application before the third respondent, who rejected the same by Ext. P2 order. Aggrieved by Ext. P2 order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second respondent. However, the second respondent has profoundly rejected the appeal without affording the petitioners a fair opportunity of being heard. The action of the second respondent is arbitrary and unjust. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, while the second respondent was interacting with the second petitioner, there was a disruption of the internet, and the hearing was not completed. Without taking into account this aspect that the second respondent rejected the appeal.

5. The learned Government Pleader refuted the said submission and stated that, during the interaction, someone was prompting the second petitioner, who broke down, and then the video conferencing got disconnected.

6. On a consideration of the rival submissions made across the Bar, I found that this is a disputed question of fact. Moreover, it is conceded that the original authority/the third respondent has not called for a certificate of Altruism from the jurisdictional police in order to set right the controversy to rest. Hence, I am of the view that the second respondent is to afford the second petitioner and the representatives of the first petitioner an opportunity of being heard in person before taking a final decision in the appeal, which would do complete justice to both sides.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:

(i) Ext. P4 order is set aside.

(ii) The second petitioner and the representatives of the first petitioner shall appear in person before the second respondent on a date that is intimated to the petitioners by phone as well as by notice in writing, which shall not be later than three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment.

(iii) In the meantime, the third respondent shall call for a certificate of Altruism from the jurisdictional police to ascertain the status of the donation.

(iv) The second respondent shall, after interact