JUDGMENT : V.G. Arun, J. 1. The petitioner is the daughter of M.M. Lawrence, a veteran Communist Leader, who passed away on 21.09.2024. Her grievance is regarding the decision to hand over the body of her father to the Government Medical College, Ernakulam, which according to respondents 5 and 6, the petitioner's siblings, was the wish of their father. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in the absence of any documentary evidence and in the light of the fact that the deceased continued to be a member of the parish of the 7th respondent church, there cannot be an assumption that the wish of the deceased was to hand over his body to the Medical College. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 asserts that the deceased had expressed his desire to the children and also to his colleagues and followers. It is submitted that respondents 5 and 6 have filed an affidavit before the authorised officer, vouching that their father had expressed such a desire. 4. Learned State Attorney drew attention to Section 4A of the Kerala Anatomy Act, 1957, to point out that the written consent of the deceased is not mandatory. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed her objection and therefore, before taking a decision in the matter, the objection should be considered. 6. Being contextually relevant, Sub-Section (1) of Section 4A of the Kerala Anatomy Act is extracted hereunder: “4A. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed her objection and therefore, before taking a decision in the matter, the objection should be considered. 6. Being contextually relevant, Sub-Section (1) of Section 4A of the Kerala Anatomy Act is extracted hereunder: “4A. Taking possession of dead bodies with the prior consent of deceased persons: (1) If any person, either in writing at any time or orally in the presence of two or more persons during his last illness, has expressed an unequivocal request that his body be used for the purpose of conducting anatomical examination and dissection after his death the party lawfully in possession of his body after his death, may, unless, the said party has reason to believe that the request was subsequently withdrawn, report the fact to the authorised officer and permit the said officer to take possession of the body and hand it over to the authority in charge of a teaching medical institution if it is required by that authority.” It is therefore evident that the consent of the deceased need not necessarily be in writing and can even be orally expressed in the presence of two or more persons. From the submissions made at the Bar, it has come out that respondents 5 and 6 have filed an affidavit stating that their father had expressed an unequivocal desire that his body be handed over and used for the purposes mentioned in Section 4A(1). 7. In view of the submissions above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to consider the objection raised by the petitioner before taking a decision on the consent alleged to have been given by the deceased and reported by respondents 5 and 6. 8. Taking into account, the submission of the learned State Attorney that, after taking possession of the body, it will be preserved for some time, the authorised officer is permitted to take possession of the body, subject to the decision to be taken after considering the petitioner’s objection. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.