JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 09.02.2020 passed by the State Authorization Committee formed under Section 3 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'). 2. It is a case where petitioner no. 1 (Roohi Khan) is suffering from Liver cirrhosis. She was advised to go for liver transplantation. The near relative, as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1994 volunteered but due to their medical condition, age and more specifically that their blood group did not match, thus, donation by the near relatives was not feasible/advisable. The report to that extent exists on the record. 3. Looking to the serious condition of the petitioner, one of the distant relative volunteered for donation of part of liver and accordingly an application was moved before the District Authorization Committee. The Authorization Committee did not accept donation of liver in the hands of petitioner no. 2-Shabi Ahmed. It is for the reason that he is not a close relative of petitioner no. 1. It is also after taking note of his financial condition and other relevant aspects. 4. On rejection of the application, petitioner no. 1 preferred a writ petition before this Court. It was dismissed on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal. Thereupon, an appeal was preferred before the State Government. It was dismissed mainly on the ground that donor is not close relative of petitioner no. 1. It is also after taking note of the financial condition of donor and other aspects. 5. It is submitted that donor is not in a close relation of the petitioner in terms of the definition of the 'near relative' otherwise they know each other since childhood. It is also a fact that the donor was frequently visiting the patient before ailment and subsequent to it. When donor could know that the liver of his near relative cannot be taken for transplantation, he offered his liver so as to save the life of petitioner no. 1. 6. It is submitted that when the donor offered his liver, it was also not found proper. He was found to be suffering from fatty liver and in reference to it, relevant record has been produced before this Court, which is taken on record. It took three months to cure the fatty liver. 7. 1. 6. It is submitted that when the donor offered his liver, it was also not found proper. He was found to be suffering from fatty liver and in reference to it, relevant record has been produced before this Court, which is taken on record. It took three months to cure the fatty liver. 7. Relation of the donor with patient has been substantiated with photographs and other materials along with those facts which are relevant to eliminate the major issue about the arrangement of donor by the means prohibited under the Act of 1994. 8. The Authorization Committee has expressed their doubt about the bona fide donation of the organ in the hands of the donor but taking note of several judgments of the different High Courts especially in the case of Jaswinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors: [(2008) 2 PLR 774 a] as well as in the case of Kuldeep Singh & Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors: [ (2005) 11 SCC 122 ], we find that the matter needs to be viewed from the angle of the patient also though at the same time it should be with elimination of any chance of management to seek donation by means prohibited under the Act of 1994. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), the Delhi High Court in the case of Sadhna Bhardwaj vs. The Department of Health & Family and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jasvinder Singh (supra) has been held that in case of non availability of relative and if there is no commercial transaction between the donor and the recipient then rejection of application would be arbitrary. The Act of 1994 prohibits the commercial transaction and toutism, which does not exist in the present case. 10. As per Rules of the Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 2014 framed under the Act of 1994 which provides for Authorization Committee. Sub rule 3 of Rule 7 provides nine conditions, which is to be seen by the Authorization Committee in a case, where the proposed donor and the recipients are not near relative. The one of the reasons for rejection of the appeal is that there is a financial disparity between the recipient and the donor. Sub rule 3 of Rule 7 provides nine conditions, which is to be seen by the Authorization Committee in a case, where the proposed donor and the recipients are not near relative. The one of the reasons for rejection of the appeal is that there is a financial disparity between the recipient and the donor. The Rule 7 (3) (VII) does not provide outright rejection of the application on the ground of financial disparity between the recipient and the donor. It provides for objective consideration into the financial status to prevent commercial dealing. The purpose of looking into the financial status is nothing but just to ensure that there should not be a commercial dealing, as prohibited under the Act of 1994. In the present case, there is no evidence before the authorities to arrive at a conclusion of commercial dealing between the recipients and the donor. The authorities only presumed disparity of financial status between the respondents and the donor. 11. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, we do not find that donor has been managed by the petitioner by means prohibited under the Act of 1994, otherwise, seems to be a case of bona fide act of the donor. 12. The donor was called in the Court for further satisfaction. He was asked about the consequence of donation of liver. He was informed about all the consequences by the doctor. It is not only the period for which he would remain in hospital but as to what extent his liver would be taken for transplantation. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied with the bona fide of the donor. Accordingly, while setting aside the orders dated 09.02.2020 and 23.12.2019 passed by the State Authorization Committee and the District Authorization Committee respectively, the prayer made in the writ petition is granted. 14. Petitioner no. 1-Roohi Khan is permitted to take liver from the donor (petitioner no. 2) for its transplantation. Proper medical care of the donor would be taken by the team of the doctors during the course of hospitalization and subsequent to it so that he may recover well. 15. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.