Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13870
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Juvvadi Sridevi, J
Banothu Mahesh Karthik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.6230 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Samhith, M. Sharada Devi
For the Respondents: T. Sharat
The court directed the respondent university to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the provision of answer scripts and re-verification status and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.
Headnote:(A) Writ of Mandamus - Access to Answer Scripts - Direction to consider representation - Where a petitioner seeks copies of answer scripts and a status update on re-verification, the court may direct the concerned authority to consider the representation and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation for providing answer scripts and re-verification status.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of writ petition for access to answer scripts and re-verification status. (Para 1) |
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:
“may issue appropriate Writ Order or direction more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not providing any status update to the Petitioner in relation to the re- verification conducted on 19.02.2026 and further not providing the Petitioner with the copies of the answer sheets sought for by the Petitioner vide representation dated 19.02.2026 as being illegal arbitrary unreasonable and in violation of the Petitioners right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and subsequently direct Respondent No.2 to immediately provide a status update on the re- verification conducted on 09.02.2026 and further allow the Petitioner to access the answer scripts as sought for by the Petitioner and pass”
02. Heard Sri P. Samhith, learned counsel representing Ms. M. Sharada Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. Sharat, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 – Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences. The record has been perused.
03. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner, without pressing the other reliefs sought in the Writ Petition, confined his request to a limited prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 19.02.2026, wherein the petitioner sought copies of the answer scripts, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court, and prayed for disposal of the Writ Petition.
04. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that, if so directed, the respondent No.2 would consider the representation dated 19.02.2026 in accordance with law and left the matter to the discretion of this Court for passing appropriate orders.
05. Having regard to the submissions made by both sides, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with an appropriate direction. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 19.02.2026 in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
06. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
