The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27027 of 2011 Date: 28.09.2011 Between: P.Manikantha ..... Petitioner AND 1.Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, B.R.K.Buildings, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Sri R.Radhakrisnna Reddy, SC for GHMC The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order, dated 15-09-2011, of respondent No.2. The petitioner’s father, who is stated to be one P.Nagabhushanam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), died on 27-04-2011, at Composite Hospital, C.R.P.F. Campus, Hyderabad. Evidently, while giving death information, the hospital authorities, instead of describing the deceased as son of P.Subbarayudu, described him as “Father of P.Manikanta (son)” i.e., the petitioner herein. In the death certificate, issued by the respondent authorities, while the name of the deceased was correctly shown, in the column relating to the name of the father/husband of the deceased, the name of his son i.e., the petitioner herein, is shown as his father’s name. The petitioner made an application to the respondent authorities for correction of the said entry. However, by the impugned order, the said application was rejected on the reasoning that “Complete deceased father names cannot be changed” (sic). However, at the bottom of the communication, it is informed that the petitioner is required to submit an application for reconsideration. In support of his plea that the name of the father of the deceased was Subbarayudu, the petitioner filed copies of household card and the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India. In my opinion, if a bona fide mistake has occurred, which, obviously, occurred in the present case, it is the responsibility of the respondents to correct the same and issue a fresh certificate. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application along with the material, in proof of his claim that the father of the deceased is one Subbaruyudu. Within two weeks from the date of receipt of such application, respondent No.2 shall consider, dispose of the same and communicate the result to the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.33385 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 28th September, 2011 LUR