Kerala High Court
Muhmmed Rasheed vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:19085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 MUHMMED RASHEED
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, THIRUNDIKKAL HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA
P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
679336
2 NISHA
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. LOHIDASAN,PADIYATH HOUSE, THOYAKAVU P.O.,
VENKIDANGU VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680513
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD
SRI.ISTINAF ABDULLAH
SMT.THASNEEM A.P.
SMT.DHILNA DILEEP
SMT.SURYA S.R.
SRI.ARSHID.M.S.
SRI.SUBRAHMANIAN T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:19085
3 THE CONVENER
STATE LEVEL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, FUNCTIONING UNDER
KERALA STATE ORGAN AND TISSUE TRANSPLANT
ORGANIZATION, 1ST FLOOR, OLD HOUSE SURGEON QUARTERS,
NEAR SUPER SPECIALITY BLOCK, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
4 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTE E FOR
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI,
PIN - 683503
BY SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:19085
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of March, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P21 order
passed by the 4th respondent, rejecting the petitioners’
joint application for permission for organ transplantation.
2. The 1st petitioner is suffering from liver
cirrhosis. He has been advised to undergo liver
transplantation to save his life. Since there is no suitable
family member in the 1st petitioner’s family to donate the
liver, the 2nd petitioner has volunteered to donate a part of
her liver for the transplantation. Consequently, the
petitioners had submitted Ext.P10 joint application before
the 4th respondent with all the supporting documents. The
petitioner has also produced Ext.P1 Certificate of Altruism
issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guruvayur
(‘ACP’ in short). However, the 4 th respondent rejected the
joint application by Ext.P12 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P12,
the petitioner had preferred Ext.P13 appeal before the 2 nd
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:19085
respondent. But, the 2 nd
respondent rejected the appeal by
Ext.P15 order. The petitioners challenged Exts.P12 and
P15 orders before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.
439/2025. When the writ petition came up for
consideration on 07.01.2025, this Court directed the ACP
to file a statement regarding the enquiry he had
conducted. Accordingly, the ACP filed Ext.P17 affidavit,
inter alia, stating that the Station House Officer, Pavaratty
Police Station had conducted an enquiry and found out the
1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner’s husband are close
friends. It was in the said background that the 2 nd petitioner
volunteered to altruistically donate a part of her liver. She
had also filed an affidavit to the said effect. By Ext.P20
judgment, this Court set aside Exts.P12 and P15 orders
and directed the 4th respondent to reconsider the matter
afresh after adverting to Ext.P1 Certificate of Altruism.
Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P20
judgment, by Ext.P21 order, the 4 th respondent has
rejected the joint application. Ext.P21 is ex facie illegal
and wrong. Hence, the writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 5
2025:KER:19085
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioners had submitted Ext.P10 joint
application seeking permission for the 2nd petitioner to
donate a part of her liver for the 1 st petitioner. By Ext.P12
order, the 4th respondent had rejected the joint application,
which order was confirmed by the 2nd respondent by
Ext.P15 order.
5. The petitioners had challenged the said
order before this Court in W.P(C).No.439/2025. By
Ext.P20 judgment, this Court, after perusing Ext.P1
certificate and the affidavit of the ACP allowed the writ
petition by making the following observations.
“9. In compliance with the above order, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police has filed an affidavit stating that he had
directed the Station House Officer of Pavaratty Police Station, to
conduct an enquiry and also the 2nd petitioner to file an affidavit
before him stating that there was no commercial dealings with the
1st petitioner. It is on the basis of the said material that he has
issued Ext.P1 certificate.
10. Recently, in Ismail Kunju (supra) case, this Court had
categorically held that, going by the scheme of the Act, the
authorization committee is to pragmatically interview that parties
and video-graph the interview and also give reasons for allowing or
declining an application for approval under Rule 7(3) of the Rules,
2014.
11. In the case on hand, after going through the affidavit filed by
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 62025:KER:19085
the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ext.P1 certificate of
altruism, I am of the view that both the respondents 2 and 4 have
failed to consider the impact of the said certificates in Exts.P12 and
P15 orders. Hence, I am satisfied that the writ petition is to be
allowed, by setting aside Exts.P12 and P15 orders and directing the
4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P10 joint application.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner;
1. Exts.P12 and P15 orders are set aside;
2. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P10
application and take a decision in the matter, in accordance with
law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
3. The 4th respondent shall intimate the petitioners regarding
the orders passed in Ext.P10 application.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.”
6. Subsequent to Ext.P20 judgment, the 4 th
respondent reconsidered the matter and has passed
Ext.P21 order in the following lines:
“Subsequent to the direction of the Honourable Court the
Committee met with the Donor and the husband. It is submitted
that this time the statements were more studied and prepared. It
is submitted that at this interaction the husband who is the
crucial link between the recipient and the donor changed his
statement and stated that he knew the recipient only for the past
three years. It is submitted that a person who has close
connection or close link with a person will not make such a
glaring disparity in stating the years of their association.
One of the key duties of the DLAC is to prepare and
explanation of the link between the party and evaluate the
circumstance which led to the offer being made. In light of the
above there seemed to be clear extraneous reasons and not
altruism as stated by the Donor and recipient. It is submitted that
it was clear that they had met only recently and the photographs
produced were that of recent association while having been
together which not more than few months were and not of an
earlier older association. It is submitted that the THOR rules were
clearly stipulates old photographs. There were no old
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 72025:KER:19085
photographs. It is submitted that no documentary link was
produced as evidence of the link.
The financial status of the Donor and the recipient was
clearly different based on their financial standing as shown by the
bank accounts.
It is further submitted that the Act envisages clear
restriction on living organ donation. It is submitted that living
organ donation is permitted only through near relatives. Only in
exceptional and extreme circumstances with clear safeguards,
living organ donation can be resorted to as is clearly stated in
section 9 of the THOT Act 1994.
The Appellate Authority also reviewed the case, found
no merit in the appeal, and upheld the rejection.
As per the Act, the DLAC is mandated to ensure that
there is no financial disparity, no involvement of middlemen, and
that the donor-recipient link is established through old
photographs. The committee acted strictly in accordance with
these legal requirements. Since no credible evidence was
provided to establish a genuine connection between the donor
and the recipient, the DLAC found no merit in the application
The DLAC, in strict compliance with the provisions of
the Act, thoroughly examined the case and found no merit in the
donor-recipient relationship, ultimately rejecting the application.
The Appellate Authority also reviewed the matter and upheld the
decision, reaffirming that the rejection was based on legal and
ethical grounds. Ensuring that organ donation remains free from
financial disparity, middlemen involvement, and fabricated
relationships is crucial in preventing organ trafficking. This order
is issued in compliance with the judgment dated 28.01.2025 of
the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 439/2025 filed by
Sri. Muhammed Rasheed and Smt. Nisha.”
7. A reading of the findings in Ext.P21 order
would reveal that the 4th respondent has not adverted to
the categoric directions passed by this Court in Ext.P20
judgment, directing the 4th respondent to specifically
advert to the observations made by the ACP in Ext.P1
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 8
2025:KER:19085
Certificate of Altruism and his affidavit filed before this
Court. This was directed because the ACP has in
unequivocal terms stated that the donation by the 2 nd
petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner was purely
altruistic and on her own free will and volition, without any
compulsion, influence or intend for reward or
consideration.
8. Unfortunately, the 4th respondent has not
adverted to the above directions, instead has concluded
that in the interaction with the 2 nd petitioner’s husband, he
has taken a contradictory stand than what was stated by
him earlier before the 4th respondent. Therefore, the
donation is not altruistic.
9. On what material the 4th respondent has
arrived at the said conclusion is not discernible, especially
when the petitioners have produced Exts.P1 to P11
documents to substantiate their assertions. It is only on
the basis of the assumptions and conjectures that the 4 th
respondent has passed the impugned order.
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 9
2025:KER:19085
10. The Transplantation of Human Organs and
Tissues Act, 1994 (Act No.42 of 1994) (‘Act’, in short), is
enacted to regulate the removal, storage and
transplantation of human organs and tissues for
therapeutic purposes and for the prevention of commercial
dealings in human organs and tissues and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
11. The Act permits and regulates organ and tissue
transplantations among near-relatives and non-near-
relatives as per the provisions of the Act, 1994, and the
Rules made thereunder.
12. S.2(i) defines “near relatives” as spouse, son,
daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather,
grandmother, grandson or granddaughter.
13. In the case on hand, it is undisputed that the 2 nd
petitioner is not a near relative of the 1 st petitioner.
Therefore, the parties are regulated by Section 9 (3) of the
Act, which reads as follows:
“9. Restrictions on removal and transplantation of human
organs or tissues or both.―
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 102025:KER:19085
(3) If any donor authorises the removal of any of his
(human organs or tissues or both) before his death under sub-
section (1) of S.3 for transplantation into the body of such
recipient, not being a near relative, as is specified by the donor
by reason of affection or attachment towards the recipient or
for any other special reasons, such (human organ or tissue or
both) shall not be removed and transplanted without the prior
approval of the Authorisation Committee.”
14. The above provision permits the donation of
human organs and tissues in favour of a person who is not
a near relative but with the prior approval of the
Authorisation Committee.
15. To achieve the object of the Act, sub-rule (3)
of Rule 7 and Rule 19 of the Transplantation of Human
Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (‘the Rules’) have been
incorporated in the Rules, which reads as under:
“R.7 Authorisation Committee. –
*** *** ***
(3) When the proposed donor and the recipient are not near
relatives, the Authorisation Committee shall, ―
(i) evaluate that there is no commercial transaction
between the recipient and the donor and that no payment
has been made to the donor or promised to be made to the
donor or any other person;
(ii) prepare an explanation of the link between them
and the circumstances which led to the offer being made;
(iii) examine the reasons why the donor wishes to
donate;
(iv) examine the documentary evidence of the link, e.g.
proof that they have lived together, etc.;
(v) examine old photographs showing the donor and
the recipient together;
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 11
2025:KER:19085
(vi) evaluate that there is no middleman or tout
involved;
(vii) evaluate that financial status of the donor and the
recipient by asking them to give appropriate evidence of
their vocation and income for the previous three financial
years and any gross disparity between the status of the two
must be evaluated in the backdrop of the objective of
preventing commercial dealing;
(viii) ensure that the donor is not a drug addict;
(ix) ensure that the near relative or if near relative is
not available, any adult person related to donor by blood or
marriage of the proposed unrelated donor is interviewed
regarding awareness about his or her intention to donate an
organ or tissue, the authenticity of the link between the
donor and the recipient, and the reasons for donation, and
any strong views or disagreement or objection of such kin
shall also be recorded and taken note of.”
“R.19. Procedure in case of transplant other
than near relatives.― Where the proposed transplant is
between other than near relatives and all cases where the
donor or recipient is foreign national (irrespective of them
being near relative or otherwise), the approval will be
granted by the Authorisation Committee of the hospital or if
hospital – based Authorisation Committee is not constituted,
then by the District or State level Authorisation Committee.”
16. If the Authorisation Committee is satisfied
that the applicants fulfil the conditions under sub-rule (3)
of Rules 7, it will issue a Certificate under Form -18 of the
Rules granting permission for the transplant.
17. In Kuldeep Singh v. State of T.N., [(2005)
11 SCC 122], the Honourable Supreme Court, while
interpreting sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, has
held that the object of the statute is to prevent commercial
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 12
2025:KER:19085
dealings in human organs. If the donor is not a near
relative of the recipient, then the Authorisation Committee
has to be satisfied that the real purpose of the donation is
due to the affection or attachment or for any other special
reason. The Authorisation Committee would be better
positioned to ascertain the authorisation’s true intent and
purpose by lifting the veil of projected affection or
attachment and the so-called special reasons and by
focusing on the true intent. The burden is on the
applicants to establish the real intent by placing relevant
materials for consideration before the Authorisation
Committee. Whether there is affection, attachment, or
special reason is within the special knowledge of the
applicants, and a heavy burden is cast on them.
18. Going by the scheme of the Act, the
statutory authorities have to be satisfied whether the
organ or tissue donation is altruistic as per the parameters
laid down under Rule 7 (3) and the materials placed before
them. There is no definitive formula to categorically
determine whether a donation is altruistic or if there is a
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 13
2025:KER:19085
commercial transaction. However, in marginal cases, like
the present one, the distinction between granting or
denying approval for transplantation is separated by a
narrow line. The commendable intent of the Act is to
prohibit commercial transactions in transplantations and
to safeguard vulnerable individuals from exploitation. It’s
not to be forgotten that some compassionate individuals
are willing to selflessly donate their organs to give a new
lease of life to a family member or friend. So, it would be
unpragmatic to assess every donation between non-
relatives on arithmetical scales or view them with
scepticism in such summary proceedings. A rigid and
inflexible interpretation of Section 9 (3) of the Act would
undermine the laudable object of the provision and render
it otiose and nugatory. Even otherwise, nowadays, it is
common knowledge that the number of recipients
outnumber the donors.
19. Recently a Bench of this Court in Ismail
Kunju vs. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KHC 547] has
categorically held that the authorities are obliged to give
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 14
2025:KER:19085
reasons in the orders passed under the Act. It is apposite
to refer to the legal principles in the decision, which reads
as follows:
“11. Thus, the scheme of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of
2014 obligates the Authorisation Committee to provide the
applicants an opportunity to be heard, and if the application is
to be rejected, it has to give the reasons in writing. The
discretion has to be used pragmatically and all interviews are
to be videographed. Therefore, the statutory scheme
contemplates and ensures transparency and objectivity in the
decision making process of the Committee. The reasons are to
be given in reference to the parameters under R.7(3) of the
Rules of 2014 as to why the application filed for organ
transplantation between the proposed living donor and the
recipient, who are not near relatives, is being rejected.
12. Apart from the statutory mandate, as a matter of fairness
and transparency in the decision – making, if the Authorisation
Committee comes to the conclusion that the application for
organ transplantation is not to be approved, then the
applicant is entitled to know the reasons, especially since the
decision has serious consequences on the applicant. When a
person’s request for kidney transplant is rejected, it directly
affects his / her right to life and health. In the case of Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and
Others, 2010 (9) SCC 496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after
taking a review of the law on the subject of duty to give
reasons, summarised certain principles. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that recording of reasons operates as a restraint
on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi –
judicial or even administrative power. Reasons re – assure that
discretion has been exercised by the decision – maker on
relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
reasons have become now indispensable component of a
decision – making process even by administrative bodies,
affecting the right of the citizens. Reasons in the orders
facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
Insistence on reasons in the order is a requirement for both
accountability and transparency. If reasons are not given in
the decision making process, then it may not be possible to
determine whether the authority has applied its mind to the
issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that reasons in
support of decisions must be cogent and clear and pretense of
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 152025:KER:19085
reasons or “rubber – stamp reasons” is not to be equated with
a mere valid decision – making process. This law, expounded
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, applies more stringently when
an application for an organ transplantation made by a patient
at a critical stage is rejected by the Committee on the ground
that the donation is not altruistic”.
20. On an overall consideration of the facts,
the materials on record and the law laid down by this
Court, and taking into account the fact that this Court
had directed the 4th respondent to re-consider the
joint application filed by the petitioners, after adverting
to Ext.P1 certificate and the affidavit filed by the
ACP, but the 4th respondent has reiterated its earlier
stand, I am not inclined to again remand the matter to
the 4th respondent, since I am satisfied that the donation is
purely out of altruism. We need to have an optimistic
perspective that non-near relatives exist, who are
genuinely willing to sacrifice their organs or tissues for
altruistic consideration.
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 16
2025:KER:19085
21. In Soubiya v. District Level Authorisation
Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs,
Ernakulam (2023 (6) KHC 293), this Court has
emphatically held that there is no presumption that a
person in financial requirement would only act for
monetary gain, which is an affront to the dignity of an
individual and is against the constitutional imperatives.
22. In Shareef K.M and another v. State of
Kerala and others (2017 (4) KHC 122), this Court has
held thus:
“6. As noted above, one of the reasons stated by the
Authorisation Committee in the instant case to decline the
approval sought by the petitioners is that there is a gross
disparity in the financial status of the donor and recipient. Gross
disparity in the financial status is certainly a factor to be gone
into by the Authorisation Committee to ascertain whether there
is any financial dealings in the transaction. But, that does not
mean that the Authorisation Committee is prevented from
granting approval for transplantation, if there is gross disparity
in the financial status of the parties. Voluntary donation of an
organ by a person is a self deprivation of the highest
order and it is inhuman to hold that such sacrifices would
be made by people only based on monetary
considerations. The materials on record do not indicate that
there is gross disparity in the financial status of the parties.
Even assuming that there is disparity in the financial status of
the parties, the same by itself is not a ground to decline the
approval for transplantation”.
(emphasis supplied)
23. In C. Seshadri & Another v. State of
Telangana (2018 ALT 5 637), the Andhra Pradesh High
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 17
2025:KER:19085
Court quashed the Authorisation Committee’s decision
and approved the transplant on the ground that a mere
suspicion or economic disparity is not a reason to deny
approval.
24. The Madras High Court in S.Samson v.
Authorisation Committee (2008 SCC OnLine Mad. 317)
has succinctly held that the Authorisation Committee must
give a cogent and convincing reasoning for concluding that
there exists financial bonding between the recipient and
the donor. The reasons must be valid and acceptable. An
opportunity of hearing should be given to the parties
concerned. The matter must be looked into with the
avowed object of helping people in need whose lives are in
danger. While exercising power under the Act, the
authorities concerned must look into the issue in a manner
that saves a person’s life, and not from a technical point of
view.
25. The Honourable Supreme Court in Association
of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants & Residents
v. Union of India [(2019) 8 SCC 607] has held that
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 18
2025:KER:19085
the right to health is fundamental to the right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to
life extends beyond mere survival to include living with
dignity, encompassing necessities like nutrition, clothing,
shelter, and the freedom to express, move, and interact.
Every act that undermines human dignity amounts to a
partial deprivation of the right to life. Such restrictions
must align with a reasonable, fair, and just legal
procedure that upholds other fundamental rights. To
truly live is to live with dignity.
26. On an analysis of the law, the facts and materials
on record, and for the reasons already stated above, this
Court concludes that Ext.P21 order is arbitrary and
unreasonable and is liable to be quashed. Given the
pressing urgency of the matter i.e., the 1st petitioner’s
medical condition, and this is the third round of litigation
before this Court, it would be imprudent to relegate the
matter to the respondents for fresh consideration. The
reality is that time is of the essence, and any further delay
may jeopardise the 1st petitioner’s life. Therefore, I deem
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 19
2025:KER:19085
it appropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and direct the respondents to grant the petitioners the
required approval for the transplantation procedure.
27. In Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another V. K.S.
Jagannathan & Another [(1986)2 SCC 679)], the
Honourable Supreme Court has declared that to prevent
injustice, the court may itself pass an order or give
directions which the Government or public authority
should have passed or exercised in its discretion at its
level.
In the above conspectus, I quash Exts.P21 order
passed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is
directed to grant permission to the petitioners for the
transplantation, in accordance with law, and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If
such permission is not granted within the stipulated time
period, it shall be deemed that such permission is granted.
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 20
2025:KER:19085
Upon the grant of such approval/deemed approval, the
petitioners shall be entitled to undergo the transplantation
as sought in Exts.P10 and P11 joint applications.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 21
2025:KER:19085
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7866/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF ALTRUISM
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, GURUVAYOOR DATED 16.09.2024
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HER
HUSBAND DATED 16.08.2024
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE
OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HER DAUGHTER
DATED 16.08.2024
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE MANALUR MLA DATED 21.09.2024
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE PATTAMBI MLA DATED 03.09.2024
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF
THE PETITIONERS DATED 31.08.2024
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE DONOR
DATED 31.08.2024
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND OF
DONOR DATED 31.08.2024
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE
DAUGHTER OF THE DONOR DATED 31.08.2024
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 3 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED
21.09.2024
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM II APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED
26.09.2024
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2024
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 22
2025:KER:19085
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 07.10.2024
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.
(C).NO.36009/2024 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
DATED 15.10.2024
EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2024
EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.439/2025 DATED
07.01.2025
EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
GURUVAYOOR IN W.P.(C). NO. 439/2025 DATED
20.01.2025
EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION
BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, GURUVAYOOR DATED 13.09.2024
EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE
DONOR BEFORE THE PAVARATTY POLICE DATED
10.09.2024
EXHIBIT P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.439/2025 DATED
28.01.2025
EXHIBIT P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2025