Naram Venkata Lakshmi, W/O. Kamaraju v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Prl. Secretary,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No.43770 of 2017 ORDER:

Heard counsel for petitioner and the Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents.

2.

Petitioner had assailed the Endorsement dt.20.10.2017 of the 3rd respondent refusing to enter petitioner's name in the online records.

3.

The reason given in the impugned endorsement is vague, since it is mentioned that complete evidence necessary is not submitted, without mentioning what is the evidence which is needed but was not filed by the petitioner.

4.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned endorsement dt.20.10.2017 of the 3rd respondent is set aside; and the 3rd respondent is directed to communicate specific reasons as to why the request of the petitioner for mutation is not acceded to by him and what documents the petitioner needs to produce according to 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent shall also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to petitioner. 5.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 04th January, 2018.

gra