THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.31643 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not correcting the petitioners sons name in the 3^rd respondent school records in issuing a fresh Bonafide Certificate by correcting the name of the petitioners son inspite of submitting the representation of the Petitioner dt.16.09.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of the nature justice and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to correct the Petitioners sons name as Bodapatla Nishanth instead of Bodapatla Bunty in the 3^rd respondents school records and issue fresh Bonafide Certificate by duly considering the representation of the petitioner dt.16.09.2025…”

3. The limited relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner, as put forth vide representation dated 16.09.2025 submitted to respondent No.3.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s son, Bodapatla Nishanth, studied 7^th class in the respondent No.3 school during the academic year 2022–23, and his name was mistakenly mentioned as Bodapatla Bunty instead of Bodapatla Nishanth. The petitioner, vide representation dated 16.09.2025, requested respondent No.3 to correct the name to Bodapatla Nishanth as per the Aadhaar card.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in spite of the petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2025 having been acknowledged by respondent No.3 school, no orders have been passed on the said representation.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that appropriate orders need to be passed on the petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2025 addressed to respondent No.3 herein in accordance with law and in the interest of justice.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

8. TAKI NG I NTO CONSI DERATI ON:

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of the respondents, The writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2025, seeking to correct petitioner’s son’s name as Bodapatla Nishanth instead of Bodapatla Bunty in the records of respondent No.3 school and to issue a fresh bonafide certificate to the petitioner’s son duly considering the petitioner’s grievance as put forth vide petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2025 within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on the said representation to the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

__________________________

MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 17.10.2025 LPD