JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The petitioners are aggrieve I by the refusal on the part of the second respondent Hospital to forward the a joint application of the petitioners seeking approval for transplantation of the kidney of the second petitioner, on the first petitioner. The first respondent is the State Level Authorisation Committee for human organ transplantation as per the Transplantation of the Human Organs Act, 1994. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, namely Ext. P-2, intimated that the second petitioner is involved in a criminal case, refused to forward the application to the first respondent. The petitioner submits that, that amounts to taking a decision by the second respondent on a matter which the first respondent alone can take under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs : i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of quashing Ext. P-1 and P-2 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondent. ii. Issue a writ of declaration that the first petitioner is entitled to get transplant the kidney from the second petitioner. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondent No. 2 to forward the joint application of the petitioners seeking approval of the first respondent to transplant kidney of the second petitioner to the first petitioner, and issue a further direction to the first respondent to grant approval for removal of kidney from the second petitioner and to transplant it to the first petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Honorable Court. 2. The Counsel appearing for the second respondents submits that it is because of Ext. P-2 report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police which disentitles the first petitioner for getting transplantation of kidney of the second petitioner, that the application was not forwarded to the first respondent. 3. I have considered the contentions in detail. 2. The Counsel appearing for the second respondents submits that it is because of Ext. P-2 report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police which disentitles the first petitioner for getting transplantation of kidney of the second petitioner, that the application was not forwarded to the first respondent. 3. I have considered the contentions in detail. Whatever be the opinion of the respondent 2 and respondent 3, in respect of the issue, I am of opinion that, insofar as the statutory authority to decide the matter finally, is the first respondent, the second respondent is bound to forward the joint application of the petitioner along with the opinion of the 3rd respondent to the first respondent and it is for the first respondent to take a final decision in the matter after taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with the statutory provisions. Accordingly, I direct the second respondent to forward the joint application filed by the petitioners to the first respondent within one week from today and the first respondent shall take a decision on the same in its next meeting and communicate the decision to the petitioners and the second respondent immediately thereafter. I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the parties and it is entirely for the first respondent to take a decision in the matter in accordance with the statutory provisions. 4. The writ petition is disposed of as above Petition 9 disposed Of. Petition Disposed Of.