JUDGMENT : The first petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are patients waiting for kidney transplantation – who are now stated to be surviving on dialysis and other life support mechanisms. They say that, even though they have placed their request for the afore – identifying the 2nd petitioners to be their respective donors, the 2nd respondent – Hospital is refusing to forward the same to the 1st respondent – District Level Authorisation Committee (DLAC), solely for the reason that a Police Clearance Certificate (‘PCC’) has not been obtained by them. 2. The petitioners assert that, consequent to the coming into force of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (herein after referred to as ‘Rules 2014’), 'PCC' is unnecessary to be obtained; and therefore, that the 2nd respondent must be directed to forward their applications, along with other relevant documents, to the 1st respondent, so that the said Authority can take a final decision urgently. They plead that this be done quickly, because they are awaiting organ transplantation for the last several months and are in great distress now. 3. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, pertinently, also affirmed that a 'PCC' is not necessary and that what is now required by the petitioners to obtain is a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the District Superintendent of Police, or Deputy Superintendent of Police, of the District having jurisdiction over the donor and the recipient. He, however, added that the DLAC has been statutorily entrusted with the competence to decide all modalities; and hence, that if the petitioners are to present themselves before the said Authority, as and when they are called, a final decision on such a certificate being obtained by them will also be taken by them. He submitted that he is making this submission, so that the processes in favour of the petitioners can be expedited; but added that the DLAC can issue final authorisations only if all relevant and germane requirements are satisfied. 4. Sri.R.S.Kalkura – learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent -Hospital, submitted that his client is only acting per the directives given to them by the 1st respondent – DLAC; and that, if this Court so directs, they are willing to forward the documents obtained from the petitioners to the said Authority. He submitted that, however, his client will have to abide by the final decision to be taken by the DLAC. He submitted that, however, his client will have to abide by the final decision to be taken by the DLAC. 5. When I consider the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that there are certain specified prescriptions stipulated in the ‘Rules’, to apply in the process of organ donation. This Court cannot, certainly, dilute the same or relax it in individual cases. 6. To paraphrase, the petitioners will have to follow the mandate of law strictly and scrupulously, because it is only if the systems are robust, can the laudable intent behind organ donation be preserved. 7. That said, since the learned Government Pleader says that all which the petitioners require is to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the Superintendent, or Deputy Superintendent of Police, of the area where both the recipient and donor are residing and not a 'PCC'; and that too, subject to it being insisted by the 1st respondent – DLAC, I am certain that this is a matter that should be left to such Authority to decide. In the afore circumstances, these Writ Petitions are ordered in the following manner: a) The 2nd respondent – Convener of the Local Committee of Organ Transplantation of the Hospital concerned, will forward the applications of the petitioners, along with all necessary documents, except ‘Certificate of Altruism’, to the 1st respondent – DLAC; and this shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. b) On the afore applications reaching the 1st respondent DLAC, its competent Authority will notify the petitioners and inform them whether they have to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the concerned Police Authority. c) If the DLAC is to find that no such Certificate is required in these cases, they will complete the processes, leading to necessary permissions to be granted to the petitioners, within a period of one month thereafter. d) However, if, on the contrary, the DLAC is to find that ‘Certificates of Altruism’ are required to be obtained by the petitioners, they will intimate them of such within a period of two weeks from the date on which they receive applications from the 2nd respondent; upon which, the petitioners will be required to obtain the same and produce it before the said Authority, as per law. e) On the afore being done, the DLAC will take a final decision on the petitioners’ request, within a period of one month from the date on which such Certificate is produced. f) Needless to say, if the 1st respondent calls upon the petitioners to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’, the 3rd respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police, or such other competent Authority, will act upon the applications for such to be made before them; and will issue necessary certificates without any avoidable delay, but not later than two weeks from the date on which it is received by them, after making all necessary enquiries.