JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P12 and P16 orders passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The first petitioner is a chronic kidney patient and the second petitioner is the donor. Not being relatives, they filed Ext.P1 joint application under Section 9 (5) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act , 1994. The second respondent rejected Ext.P1 application by Ext.P12 order, which was affirmed by the first respondent as per Ext.P16 order. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

2. Though several grounds have been raised and multiple reliefs sought in the writ petition, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined the prayers to the grievance relating to the rejection of Ext.P1 joint application as evidenced by Exts.P12 and P16 orders.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent without any proper reason rejected Ext.P1 application. It is further submitted that the second respondent failed to consider Ext.P3 Certificate of Altruism dated 10.03.2025 as well as Ext.P9 letter dated 31.12.2024 produced from the Member of Parliament, Kozhikode. As regards the link