The court held that administrative bodies must provide clear reasoning for decisions impacting life, emphasizing the importance of transparency under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Exhibit P2 order passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioners’ joint application for organ transplantation.

2. The first petitioner is suffering from chronic kidney disease. The first petitioner has been advised to undergo kidney transplantation. Since there are no suitable family members in the first petitioner's family to donate a kidney, the second petitioner has volunteered to donate one of his kidneys. The petitioners had submitted a joint application before the second respondent with all the supporting documents. The second respondent called for Ext. P6, the certificate of altruism from the Assistant Superintendent of Police (‘ASP’, for short), Varkala. However, the second respondent rejected the joint application by Ext. P4 order. Aggrieved by Ext. P4 order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the first respondent, but the appeal was also rejected by Ext. P5 order. Challenging Exts. P4 and P5 orders passed by the respondents 2 and 1, the petitioners preferred WP(C) No.42664/2024 before this Court. By Ext. P1 judgment, this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Exts. P4 and P5 orders. The second respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioners’ joint application afresh, after adverting to the materials on record, particularly Ext. P6 certificate of altruism issued by the ASP. Notwithstanding the specific directions passed by this Court, the second respondent has again rejected the joint application, without rendering any finding as directed by this Court. Ext. P2 is arbitrary, illegal and passed without any application of mind. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

4. The petitioners had submitted a joint application to permit the second petitioner to donate one of his kidneys for the first petitioner. However, the second respondent rejected the joint application. Although, the matter was carried in appeal before the first respondent, the appeal was also rejected.

5. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the respondents 1 and 2 before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 42664/2024. By Ext. P1 judgment, this Court allowed the writ petition, by making the following observations:

“12. On a consideration of Exts.P4 and P7 orders, I find there is conspicuous absence of findings under Rule 7(3) of the Rules. Instead, both authorities have passed the orders without referring to the statements of the petitioners, the alleged contradiction, and why Ext.P3 certificate of Altruism should be given a go by. Therefore, I am satisfied that Exts. P4 and P7 have to be quashed, and the second respondent is to be directed to reconsider the application afresh, with available materials on record, and then pass a fresh order as per the provisions of the Act and Rules with proper reasons and due application of mind.

In the result;

(i) Exts.P4 and P7 orders are quashed.

(ii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider the joint application of the petitioners afresh, with the materials available on record and pass a considered order as provided under the Act and Rules.

(iii) It is made clear that the petitioners need not be offered an opportunity of being heard in view of the materials already available on record.

(iv) The second respondent shall carry out the exercise, in a