MCA Inspection Flags Alleged Forged DGCA Certificate in Drone Federation India Name-Change Bid

Inspection Findings

A Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) inspection has recorded findings concerning an allegedly forged No-Objection Certificate (NOC) purportedly issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to Drone Federation India (DFI) during its bid to change its name. The inspection report, prepared by MCA Assistant Director Altaf M. Shaikh, states that the DGCA informed the ministry that the NOC was not genuine.

The issue arose during DFI's application to change its name from 'Drone Federation India' to 'Drone Federation of India'. The proposed name had attracted an objection over concerns that it could convey an impression of government patronage. As part of the name-change process, DFI submitted a purported NOC from the DGCA.

According to the inspection report, the file number mentioned in the document did not exist in DGCA records. The report also records that the signature on the NOC was attributed to an officer who had retired before the date appearing on the document. On pages 59 and 60 of the report, the officer records that the allegedly false DGCA document was submitted along with RUN applications.

Recommended Penal Action

Based on these findings, the inspection officer recommended penal action against three DFI directors — Rahat Kulshreshtha, Pravin Vinod Prajapati and Vipul Singh — along with company secretary Anoop Kumar Pandey, under Sections 448 read with 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 448 deals with false statements made in documents required under the Companies Act, while Section 447 deals with fraud.

The report also records a separate alleged irregularity involving a director's signature on a clarification letter. According to the findings, the signature was allegedly copied from a Board Resolution, with penal liability recorded under Section 158 of the Companies Act.

Subsequent Prosecution

However, documents connected with the subsequent prosecution before the 37th Court at Fort, Mumbai, indicate a difference between the inspection findings and the charges ultimately pursued. In Special Case No. 578/2026, filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, DFI and the three directors are charged under Sections 134(8), 129(7) and 128(6) of the Companies Act, which relate to financial statements, corporate reporting and maintenance of books of account. The prosecution does not invoke Sections 448 and 447 in relation to the alleged forged DGCA NOC, despite the inspection officer's recommendation.

The difference between the inspection findings and the later prosecution has been raised in a complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which alleges that officials failed to act on the Part A findings of the inspection report. The allegations contained in the complaint have not been established.

DFI Response

DFI president Smit Shah denied any wrongdoing and said the matter is sub judice. In a statement, Shah said: "The matter is currently subjudice, and we categorically deny any wrongdoing. Our legal team is examining the matter and will respond appropriately before the competent forum. Given the ongoing proceedings, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this stage."