JUDGMENT SUNIL P. DESHMUKH :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. A very poignant state of affairs surfaces in the matter 3. Notice of petition sent by this court for final disposal and the further notice and/or intimation through e-mail and fax, are served on the Respondent No. 4, yet it has failed to put in appearance on its behalf. This failure to appear before this court in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem, not only impedes the cause of justice and treatment to patient-petitioner affected due to failure of kidney, despite availability of a person who is donate kidney for transplantation in body of the petitioner. 4. It appears that under the revisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and Rules, 1995, a proposal for transplantation of human organ, in the (present case, kidney is to be forwarded through respondent No.4 to the authorization committee-respondent No.3, constituted pursuant to Section 9 (4) (b) of said enactment. 5. Petitioner's disease appears to advanced stage which she is suffering for last about 8 to 10-years and she has been advised the transplantation of kidney as early possible to save her life. It is shown that in k medical test, it has transpired that kidney of family members did not match to the petitioner. 6. It appears that appropriate minority-Di rector of Health Services, Mumbai- Respondent No. 2 has issued re-registration certificate of transplantation in favour of Respondent No. 4 for a period of five years. After striving hard, petitioner claims that a person whose kidney may match to her, has come forward to donate the kidney. 7. Petitioner had been lately laking treatment in Rubi Hall Clinic-Respondent No.4. Her name has been registered with Respondent No. 4. 8. One Sadshiv H. Pawar was admitted in Rubi Hall Clinic for transplantation of his kideny. Various tests have been conducted on him. His affidavit has also been placed before Respondent No.4-clinic. 9. The petitioner, as well as donor had been referred to by Respondent No.4 to various hospitals for the purpose of medical fitness and tests of matching organs as well as blood groups. All the tests of the petitioner and donor are also conducted by Respondent No. 1. His affidavit has also been placed before Respondent No.4-clinic. 9. The petitioner, as well as donor had been referred to by Respondent No.4 to various hospitals for the purpose of medical fitness and tests of matching organs as well as blood groups. All the tests of the petitioner and donor are also conducted by Respondent No. 1. The donor and the petitioner are taking treatment for the purpose of transplantation of kidney, however, prior approval is necessary under section 9(3) of the enactment. 10. The petitioner thus has requested Respondent No. 4 under an application to forward proposal of petitioner to authorization committee for approval. However, respondent No. 4 clinic is reluctant to forward petitioner's proposal to the authorization committee for, according to the petitioner, it is learnt that respondent No.4-clinic has stopped accepting unrelated patients for kidney transplantation. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4-clinic is not entitled to restrict transplantation of human organs only in respect of related patients. 11. Despite requests on various occasions, there has been cold response at the end of Respondent No.4-clinic in respect of forwarding proposal to the authorization committee. Petitioner's sufferings have reached advanced stage and transplantation of kidney has become urgent and as such, petitioner has moved this court. 12. Considering the averments which are not controverter, we deem it appropriate that, it would be in the interest of justice to make Rule absolute in the petition and direct Respondent No.4-clinic to forward petitioner's proposal to authorization committee for grant of approval as early as possible and in any case, within a fortnight from the date of receipt of this order. 13. We would like to place on record our strong disapproval of callous disregard reflected from conduct of Respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 would do well to respond to the notices of the court, promptly. 14. Petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of foregoing para Nos. 12 and 13. 15. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear own costs. Petition allowed.