However, in so far as the second requirement insisted by the respondent no. 1 to produce the consent from the father of the petitioner no. 2, it is noted that the petitioner no. 2 had already placed on record an affidavit filed by her husband which satisfied the requirement of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2014. Therefore the impugned action of the respondent no. 1 requiring the petitioner no. 2 to furnish the consent from her estranged father tantamount to imposing an onerous condition which cannot perhaps be complied. Under the circumstances, the requirement insisted by the respondent no. 1 to produce the consent of the father of the petitioner no. 2 for the intended transplantation is liable to be set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Writ Petition No. 8148 of 2020 (GM-RES)
Decided On: 10.07.2020
Shailaja Madathil Valappil Vs. The State Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Nataraj Rangaswamy, J.
Citation: MANU/KA/2474/2020
