Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
MUHAMMED THOUFEEQ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39767 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For the Respondents: SMT. K B SONY -GP
The court emphasizes the urgency of medical cases concerning organ transplantation applications and mandates timely decision-making.
Headnote:This judgment involves the petitioners' request seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order rejecting their joint application for renal transplantation. The court finds the necessity for expedition in resolving the application, highlighting the urgency due to the first petitioner's medical condition. The court orders a reasoned decision on the appeal by the second respondent swiftly within three weeks from receipt of this judgment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek relief for an urgent medical issue. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court hears arguments and considers urgency. (Para 4) |
| 3. court orders expedited decision on appeal. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner, suffering from chronic kidney failure, has been advised to undergo urgent renal replacement therapy. The second petitioner, who is his family friend, has volunteered to donate her organ for conducting the renal transplantation surgery.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
“a) Call for the records leading up to Ext. P7 order and quash it by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the 3rd respondent to grant approval for unrelated renal transplantation among the petitioners.
b)Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P8 appeal, within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is a fruit vendor and he has been undergoing treatment for chronic kidney disease at the West Fort Hospital, Thrissur and is advised for an immediate kidney transplantation. When the second petitioner came to know about the disease of the first petitioner, she expressed her readiness to donate her kidney. Thereafter, Exts.P5 (Form 3) and P6 (Form 11) joint application along with all necessary documents were submitted.
However, the joint application of the petitioners was rejected by Ext.P7 stating that the altruistic motive of the second petitioner was not revealed. Against Ext.P7, petitioners submitted Ext.P8 appeal dated 21.10.2025 before the second respondent.
Petitioners seek expeditious disposal of the same.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Considering the urgency involved, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take up Ext.P8 appeal dated 21.10.2025 and pass a reasoned order thereon within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
