Kerala High Court
Sheebamol K.J vs Government Of India on 4 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.28111 OF 2020(L)
PETITIONER:
SHEEBAMOL K.J
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. LATE ROY MATHEW, PEMALA HOUSE,
KOTTACKUPURAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686 562
BY ADV. SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, OFFICE OF SR.DDG,
KERALA LSA, CTSD COMPOUND, GANDHI NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 020
2 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER,
B.S.N.L OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001
3 BIJU MATHEW,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, PEMALA HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O.,
KOTTACKUPURAM, KOTTAYAM-686 562
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.KRISHNA KUMARI.K.R., SC, BSNL,
SRI.S.VAIDHYANATHAN, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28111 OF 2020(L)
2
J U D G M E N T
The grievance of the petitioner is over the
action of the second respondent in denying her
transfer of SIM No.9447807004 which was issued in the
name of her deceased husband. It is stated that
immediately after the death of her husband Roy Mathew,
she had given consent for conduct of business which
was being undertaken by her husband, by the 3 rd
respondent, who is the bother of the deceased husband.
However later the petitioner submitted Ext.P5
complaint requesting for transferring the SIM in her
name. Even though the said complaint was submitted as
early as on 24.02.2020, the second respondent did not
take any action. Therefore petitioner submitted
another complaint before the first respondent. It is
stated that by Ext.P8 letter the second respondent
informed the petitioner that the SIM card has already
WP(C).No.28111 OF 2020(L)
been linked with the Aadhaar Number of the 3 rd
respondent, Shri Biju Mathew and BSNL is not
responsible for any unauthorized use due to transfer
of SIM by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
as per the provision contained in Rule 429 of Indian
Telegraph Rules, transfer of a SIM can be made only to
the legal heirs and a transfer to anybodyelse can only
be with the consent of the legal heirs. According to
the petitioner such consent is not given by any of the
legal heirs of deceased Roy Mathew.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as Smt.K.R.Krishna Kumari, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
It is seen that a decision on the complaint Ext.P5 is
not taken by the second respondent in accordance with
rules. Therefore there shall be a direction to the
second respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 complaint
submitted by the petitioner for transferring the SIM
WP(C).No.28111 OF 2020(L)
in accordance with the rules dehorse Ext.P8 and to
take appropriate action within a period of 'one month'
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE
AS
WP(C).No.28111 OF 2020(L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF ROY
MATHEW DATED 19.12.2017
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THAHASILDAR ,
KOTTAYAM DATED 15.02.2019
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY
ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH FOR THE
PERIOD 2019-2020 DATED 07.09.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DATED
24.02.2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24.02.2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
26.02.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.05.2020
