1 2 DR. ABDUL SALAM P.M v. STATE OF KERALA

Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal – learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Exts.P10 and P13 are uncharitable and unfortunate, to say the least; and that every document to establish that the parties were in Bahrain at the same time has been produced on record; and that certain additional documents have also been produced before this Court in WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -4- substantiation.

6. Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal argued that, when it is so established that both the petitioners were in Bahrain at the same period of time, their further assertion that the second among them had worked for the first among them, thus creating an affinity between them, could not have been disregarded and jettisoned by the Authorities for no valid reason. He thus prayed that both Exts.P10 and P11 be set aside and the ‘DLAC’ be directed to grant permission to the 1st petitioner to accept the organ from the 2nd petitioner.

7. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, in response, however, submitted that, as evident from Ext.P10, the 2nd petitioner made an assertion before the ‘DLAC’ that he was in Bahrain in the year 2012 and working for the 1st petitioner. However, he said WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -5- that the 1st petitioner was owning an Automobile Workshop; while, the said petitioner admitted that he was having a Kitchen Tools Company. He pointed out that the discrepancies in the versions of the parties, as also that of the wife of the 2nd petitioner, were so glaring – particularly when she could not even know the name of the 1st petitioner; and therefore, that the ‘DLAC’ has no other option but to reject the request of the petitioner. He pointed out that, for the same reasoning, the Appellate Authority has issued Ext.P13; and hence that this writ petition is not deserving of being granted relief.

8. I must record that, prima facie, this Court cannot find error in the stand adopted by the ‘DLAC’ and the Appellate Authority. I say so because, going by the materials produced before them by the petitioners at the relevant time, WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -6- perhaps, nothing more could have been found by them.

9. However, the petitioners have now produced certain additional documents before this Court, which are basically to establish that the second among them was in Bahrain during the relevant time and thus to substantiate their version. However, these documents, or any other document that the petitioners may have, had never been brought to the notice of the ‘DLAC’, or to that of the Appellate Authority; and obviously, therefore, all which this Court can do is to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to establish their case, through the relevant and germane documentary evidence.

10. I, therefore, asked the learned Government Pleader - Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, whether his client would stand in the way of one more opportunity being given to the petitioners, WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -7- to which, he fairly submitted that the Authorities have nothing against them and would have conceded to any request, if it had been found to be genuine and for altruism. He submitted that, therefore, even if this Court is inclined to allow the petitioners one more chance, it may be clarified that the competent Authority can act in terms of law and based on the documents and evidence to be made available by them through such opportunity.

11. No doubt, as matters now stand, this Court cannot grant any relief, as has been sought for by the petitioners, particularly in the wake of Exts.P10 and P13. However, as I have already said above, these orders are based on the evidence and materials that had been placed before the ‘DLAC’ and the Appellate Committee by the petitioners at the relevant time; but the said Authorities did not have the benefit of the WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -8- further documents, which have been placed before this Court by them subsequently. Solely for the afore reason, I order this writ petition with the following directions: (a) Exts.P10 and P13 will stand set aside; however, not because have been conclusively found to be in error, but to pave way for a fresh consideration of the petitioners’ application by the ‘DLAC’. (b) The ‘DLAC’ will, consequently, hear the petitioners and give them further opportunities of producing additional documents and evidence; and then issue a fresh order as per law, adverting to all relevant documents, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (c) I, however, clarify that I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -9- contentions of the parties, and that all of them are left open to be decided appositely by the ‘DLAC’, or by the Appellate Authority in future, if it becomes so warranted. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -10- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42204/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 08.05.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS WIFE DATED 01.04.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS DAUGHTER DATED 01.04.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 08.05.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS RELATIVES DATED 12.05.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 3 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 12.05.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM II APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 12.05.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SHANKUMUGHAM DATED 03.07.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO. 24105/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 24.07.2023 EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2023 WP(C) NO. 42204 OF 2023 -11- EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P14 EXHIBIT P15 EXHIBIT P16 EXHIBIT P17 EXHIBIT P18 EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.09.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.31848/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.09.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN IN THE NAME OF ANTONY KUNJUMON, S/O. ANTONY, ISSUED ON 08.12.2010 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL DATA NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN DATED NIL THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PASSPORT NO. G0818962 ISSUED BY THE PASSPORT OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM ON 24.01.2007 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ENDORSEMENT IN MY PASSPORT DATED 13.11.2008 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL DATA NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE KINGDOM OF BEHRIN DATED 13.01.2009 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KINGDOM OF BEHRIN IN THE NAME OF ANTONY KUNJUMON, S/O. ANTONY, ISSUED ON 01.11.2009