A private entity cannot be compelled by a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 as it does not constitute 'State'.

O R D E R

Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. Since this Court is not inclined to pass any adverse order as against the respondents 1 and 2, notice to the respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.04.2025 and issue fresh transfer certificate mentioning the petitioner's father's name as N.Antony Paulraj instead of Muthukrishnan.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent had issued transfer certificate. The petitioner's name has been wrongly entered. Hence, they have given representation to the first respondent and copy was addressed to the respondents 2 and 3. Inspite of the same, the first respondent is not taking any action.

4.The learned Government Advocate would vehemently contend that the prayer sought for is against the first respondent and would submit that the third respondent has absolutely no right to correct the transfer certificate of the petitioner.

5.I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6.It is obvious that the first respondent is a private person and will not come within the definition of State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India . Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition.

7.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.