Mandamus issued to dispose transplant application within one month despite procedural defects, allowing fresh compliant filing.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs:

“1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents 3 to 5 to take necessary legal steps to consider and pass orders in Exhibit P7 request within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2.

To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 6^th respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner before the 5^th respondent and afford an opportunity to adduce further evidents if any required.

3.

To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing to the respondents 3 to 5 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

4.

To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 6^th respondent to issue rejection report upon petitioner's application for kidney transplantation.”

2. According to the petitioner, he is a chronic kidney patient who is undergoing treatment and is in emergent need of kidney transplantation. According to the petitioner, one Mrs.Rojeny P.J, the wife of one Mr.Sebastian Biju.T., a close friend of petitioner's father is willing to donate one of her kidney as per the provisions of The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissue Act (for short 'THOTA Act') and her husband and mother have executed a consent letter as per the procedure. Though the petitioner approached the 6^th respondent, the 6^th respondent declined the request stating that there are contradictions in the documents and statements of the donor.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. Notice issued to the

5^th respondent.

4. The limited prayer in this writ petition is to dispose of Ext.P7 application within a time frame fixed by this Court. According to the petitioner, though he filed Ext.P7 application, it has not been disposed of so far by respondents 3 to 5.

5. The 3^rd respondent filed statement to the effect that the petitioner has not preferred any joint application along with the Form 3 and Form 2 as prescribed by the Rules and no application has been made to the authorisation committee and therefore, the writ petition is premature.

6. If the petitioner has not preferred any joint application along with Form 3 and Form 2, as prescribed by the Rules and no application has been made to the authorised committee, it is open to the respondents to dispose of Ext.P7 application citing the said reason with a direction to make necessary application in the prescribed form as per Rules.

7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to dispose of Ext.P7 application in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.