1. 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 between the donor and the recipient, the learned counsel submitted that the recipient’s son-in-law, Sri.Sajith, was an electrician, who takes contract works of an IT based company, wherein the donor’s husband was working, and thus, they became friends. It is further submitted that, both the Committee failed to consider the Certificate of Altruism, which very clearly substantiates that no commercial transaction was involved in the afore case, and that, the finding in Exts.P12 and P16 that the petitioners failed to establish a credible link between them and to prove emotional attachment, is without considering the documents and facts.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that Exts.P12 and P16 rejection orders were on valid grounds; and the petitioners failed to prove the link between them; and hence, Exts.P12 and P16 orders do not call for any interference by this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

6. Ext.P3 is the Certificate of Altruism, wherein the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kollam City, stated that the second petitioner herein has voluntarily consented to donate one of her kidneys to the first petitioner herein, upon her free will. Further, in Ext.P9 letter issued by the Member of Parliament, Kozhikode, it is stated that both parties are known to her and no commercial transaction is involved in the case. The second respondent, while considering the issue, found, with regard to the relationship between the donor and the recipient, that the parties failed to establish a satisfactory link between them or the circumstances that prompted the offer of kidney donation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Exts.P17 and P18 judgments, on similar facts. In Ext.P17 judgment, this Court found that the Certificate of Altruism issued by the police and the similar certificate issued by a Member of Parliament ought to have been considered by the Committee, while considering the applications. Here, in this case, the Committee failed to take into consideration Ext.P3 Certificate of Altruism as well as Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Member of Parliament and found in Ext.P12 that, the conditions of voluntariness and altruism have not been satisfied in the case; and accordingly, holding that the application for live kidney donation between the parties does not meet the mandatory conditions for approval in the absence of substantial proof of a genuine emotional bond, coupled with concerns about the donor’s health and vulnerability, the application was rejected.

8. Similar findings were recorded in Ext.P16, wherein it was held that the parties failed to establish a clear, consistent, and emotionally compelling bond between them. Furthermore, the donor has two children, and her husband is a patient with blood pressure issues and suffers from memory loss. The appellate authority found that though no financial transaction was established, they failed to prove emotional altruistic connection between them.

9. The second respondent is seen to have relied only on the inconsistency of statements given by the son-in-law of the recipient and the husband of the donor and did not consider the documents produced by the applicants in its proper perspective. Considering the afore facts, I am of the opinion that one more opportunity has to be given to the petitioners to prove their relationship or link between them, which led to the afore kidney donation.

                  In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. Exts.P12 and P16 orders are set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after affording opportunities to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. All other prayers in the writ petition are left open.