1. Rule. Ms. Raval, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Though served, respondent no. 3 has not appeared. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith.
2. The petitioner, by way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court for the following reliefs “(a) admit and allow above captioned Special Civil Application,
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents- authorities to take immediate decision in the Application preferred by present petitioner under the Provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs & Tissues Act, 1994,
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to supply all information related to case of present petitioner pursuant to application preferred by him under the provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994;
(d) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, to direct the respondents – authorities to take immediate decision in the Application preferred by present petitioner under the Provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs & Tissues Act, 1994, and further to direct them to supply all information related to case of present petitioner pursuant to application preferred by him under the provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994;
(e) Be pleased to pass any other and further order as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice;”
2. Facts in brief, leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from the memo of petition deserve to be set out as under.
The petitioner is suffering from renal problem which the petitioner has characterized as 'Chronic Renal Failure', which in past warranted transplantation of the kidney and his mother donated the kidney to him. Unfortunately, that kidney did not function properly, which again resulted into recurring of serious problems warranting transplantation or frequent diagnosis. The petitioner's relatives unfortunately are not capable of giving kidney on account of their test reports, which indicated that their kidney cannot be suitably transmitted into the body of petitioner. The petitioner has a well wisher and friend, who is ready and willing to donate one of his kidneys to petitioner to save his life and help petitioner in leaving proper life. Accordingly, the requisite formalities were undertaken and petitioner filed joint application with photographs as prescribed under the provisions of law. The concerned authority under the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder is respondent no. 2 to accord approval to such transplantation of organ from one leaving being to another leaving being. The respondent no. 2 authority is approached by the petitioner with appropriate application. The application was made on 1.6.2011 and till date, it has remained undecided. The petitioner approached the other authorities also and petitioner was given reply that proposal is required to be moved through the concerned hospital. The Rules in this behalf did not require any proposal to be processed and put up by the hospital and even had it been, the petitioner was not informed by the Committee in any manner that the application put up by the petitioner and donor is in any way defective or incomplete. Therefore, this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayers mentioned therein and stated hereinabove.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that assuming for the sake of argument without conceding that there exists any requirement of rotating the application through hospital, which is going to perform transplantation, then also, nothing is informed to the petitioner with regard to so called incompleteness or so called discrepancy in the application form.
4. This Court issued notice on 12.01.2012, which was for final disposal, which was made returnable on 16.01.2012 i.e today. In response to the notice, the State has appeared through learned AGP, who has invited this court's attention to Form No. 10 prescribed under the Rules and submitted that the application shall be accepted for consideration by the Authorization Committee only if it is complete in all respects and any omission of the document or the information required in the forms, shall render the application incomplete. Learned AGP has also submitted that she has received instructions that the proposal is required to be routed through the hospital, which is undertaking the transplantation and said hospital is required to be registered as such, under law for authorization of transplantation.
5. This Court is of the considered view that as the learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to make positive statement that whether the application is made in Form No. 10 as stated, suffice it to dispose of this petition by saying that all the concerned shall reply to the petitioner by appropriate communication indicating therein that as to whether the application made by the petitioner with donor is incomplete and it is being rejected on that ground or the application is required to be considered after completion of all formalities at the end of the petitioner and donor and application dated 6.1.2011 may be replied in appropriate way in accordance with law. It is expected that if the application is complete, then, same shall be processed and decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in view of the urgency expressed by the petitioner.
6. With this observation, petition is dismissed with no costs. Rule discharged.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav