IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and W.M.P.No.45318 of 2025 Taba Tania S/o.Taba Chada, Yazali, Lower Subansiri, Yazali 791119, Arunachal Pradesh.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.Office of the Chairman Committee and Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

2.The Chairman and Managing Director Kovai Medical Center & Hospital Limited, Post Box No.3209, Avanashi Road, Coimbatore.

Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the impugned order No.K.Dis.No.86353/H&DII/4/2025 dated 03.10.2025 of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to undergo the renal transplant operation at the second respondent/hospital, receiving the organ from his mother/

donor Taba Maloti.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.John Zachariah For R1: Mr.E.Sundaram Government Advocate

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 passed in K.Dis.No.86353/H&DII/4/2025 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to undergo renal transplant operation at Kovai Medical Centre & Hospital Limited, second respondent herein, by receiving the organ from his mother/donor Taba Maloti, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the daily wager, his wife is a homemaker and blessed with a male child, aged about three years; he is diagnosed with renal problem in 2025; as his condition worsened, he consulted a nephrologist at home town in Arunachal Pradesh, who, in turn, referred him to Kovai Medical Centre & Hospital Limited, second respondent herein and the second respondent/hospital advised kidney transplant; as his condition was bad, he was put on hemodialysis and as his condition progressively worsened and the problem has become serious, he was advised to undergo transplant immediately; at that time, his mother, out of her love and affection, had come forward to donate one of her kidneys and she is also medically fit to donate same, which has been approved by the Authorisation Committee in Arunachal Pradesh; no objection certificate has also been issued by the Authorisation Committee in this regard from Arunachal Pradesh; the second respondent/hospital also issued a certificate after examining his mother by stating that the donor is fit for surgery; when the transplant was about to be done as per the procedure under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act”), his mother was referred to the Authorisation Committee constituted by the State of Tamil Nadu; after examination, the impugned order came to be passed, as if, his mother is unfit to undergo surgery and hence, according to him, the impugned order is against the very Act itself.

3. When the medical officers, who is going to perform the transplant and the experts in the field have opined that the donor is fit for surgery and transplant can be done easily, taking contrary view on the basis of the appearance is not correct. Further, the Authorisation Committee of Arunachala Pradesh has also examined and certified that the petitioner’s mother is fit for surgery and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's mother was medically examined by a team of doctors and found that since she is aged about 69 years, she is not fit to donate kidney under high cardiac risk. He would further submit that the medical officer examined the petitioner’s mother physically and found that she is not fit for being a renal donor in high risk category and only on that ground permission was rejected by the Authorisation Committee. Further, according to him, guidelines issued under Rule 23 of the Transplan