IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15577 of 2006 DATED: 27-07-2006 Between: P.V.Ramanamma petitioner And The Chodavaram Coop Sugars Ltd, A society registered under Societies Registration Act, Govada, Chodavaram Mandal Visakapatnam District Rep by its Managign Director Sri Ramalinga Reddy REspondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 15577 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER : The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent in not considering the representations of the petitioner dated 20.4.2006 and 3.7.2006 for correction of her date of birth in the records. In the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a handicapped women working in the respondent society as daily wage clerk in the accounts section since long time. The petitioner claims that her actual date of birth is 15.7.1956 and the same was mentioned in her matriculation certificate dated 29.7.1989 issued by the Andhra University. The petitioner alleges that her date of birth was not correctly recorded in the records of the company. That she made several oral requests and also made representations dated 20.4.2006 and 3.7.2006 to the Managing Director of first respondent company to rectify the mistake and to correct her date of birth in the records as 15.7.1956, but no action was taken. Hence the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to correct the date of birth of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner was not correctly recorded in the records of the respondent company and the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioner dated 20.4.2006 and 3.7.2006 is illegal and sought for interference of this Court. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. The latest representation filed by the petitioner is dated 3.7.2006 and without waiting for reasonable time the petitioner rushed to this Court alleging non consideration of her representation. That apart, the representations submitted by the petitioner are very precise and does not disclose the required details and even does not indicate that the material documents in support of the claim of the petitioner were furnished to the respondent. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent has not considered the representation of the petitioner for correcting of date of birth. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation to the Managing Director of respondent company together with required documentary evidence in support of her claim. On filing such a representation, the sole respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, expeditiously. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 27.7.2006 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15577 of 2006 DATED: 27-07-2006