JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The 1 st petitioner is a Kidney patient. The 2 nd petitioner is a donor. The 2 nd petitioner proposes to donate Kidney to the 1 st petitioner. Exts.P10 and P11 applications were submitted for authorisation for unrelated renal transplantation under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The application was rejected as per Ext.P12 order of the District Level Authorisation Committee for transplantation of human organs. The petitioners filed Appeal by way of Ext.P14. However, the Government rejected the Appeal as per Ext.P15 order. The petitioners would submit that the Appeal was rejected without considering any of the grounds urged by the petitioners and without giving an opportunity of hearing. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither the 3 rd respondent nor the 2 nd respondent has considered Ext.P1 Altruism Certificate issued by the District Police Chief after conducting due enquiry and investigation. Investigation was conducted through local police. Ext.P1 would indicate that the proposed organ donation is upon free will of the donor without any compulsion, influence or intent of reward or consideration. 3. The local MLA has issued Exts.P4 and P5 certificates which would also state that the Kidney is being donated voluntarily and there is no commercial transactions involved. Exts.P12 and P15 orders are highly illegal and arbitrary. The 1 st petitioner's life is in peril. Unless Exts.P12 and P15 are set aside, the 1 st petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 4. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. Government Pleader denied all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioners have miserably failed to establish Altruism. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the donor has worked in the textile shop of the 1 st petitioner. The statement given before the authorities by the parties were totally contradictory. 5. The District Level Authorisation Committee noted that there are a large number of dubious organ transplantation applications coming before the Committee. There are prima facie materials to show that many of such applications have commercial interest. Unless the petitioners establish that the organ donation is voluntary and unless altruism is proved, such applications cannot be considered. There is nothing illegal in Exts.P12 and P15 orders. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contended the Government Pleader. 6. There are prima facie materials to show that many of such applications have commercial interest. Unless the petitioners establish that the organ donation is voluntary and unless altruism is proved, such applications cannot be considered. There is nothing illegal in Exts.P12 and P15 orders. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contended the Government Pleader. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. The specific case of the petitioners is that the 2 nd petitioner has worked in the textile shop of the 1 st petitioner-recipient for a considerably long time. They have acquainted themselves during this period. It is seeing the pathetic situation of the 1 st petitioner that the 2 nd petitioner, out of compassion, offered to donate her Kidney. 8. Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Varkala would show that the Police have conducted due enquiries/investigation through the Station House Officer and it has been established that the 2 nd petitioner has voluntarily consented to donate one Kidney upon her free will and without any compulsion. There is no intent of reward or consideration. Exts.P4 and P5 certificates issued by the local MLA would also assert that the decision of the 2 nd petitioner to donate the Kidney is without any external pressure and without intend to receive monetary consideration. 9. However, the District Level Authorisation Committee has rejected the application as per Ext.P12 order. The reason advanced in Ext.P12 is that the recipient's case is that the 2 nd petitioner-donor worked in the textile shop for a month before Covid-19. However, according to the donor, she worked at the shop for around four years from 2018 to 2023. The contradiction in the said statement has forced the District Level Authorisation Committee to doubt the bona fides in the transaction. The appellate authority rejected the appeal relying on the conclusions of the District Level Authorisation Committee. 10. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the donor has not continuously worked for four years in the textile shop. She has worked only for a few months intermittently. What was stated by the donor was that they have close acquaintances from the period from 2018 to 2023. If that be so, the rejection would be based on a misappreciation of the facts. She has worked only for a few months intermittently. What was stated by the donor was that they have close acquaintances from the period from 2018 to 2023. If that be so, the rejection would be based on a misappreciation of the facts. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the health condition of the 1 st petitioner, I am of the view that a fresh opportunity should be granted to the petitioners to establish their bona fides in the transaction before the District Level Authorisation Committee. 11. For the purpose of enabling reconsideration of the matter, Exts.P12 and P15 are set aside. The 3 rd respondent is directed to reconsider the application and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six weeks. The petitioners shall be permitted to adduce additional evidence including evidence by way of affidavits, before the District Level Authorisation Committee in order to show the bona fide/Altruism. The writ petition is disposed of as above.