Ministry flags forged DGCA certificate in Drone Federation India name-change bid
The inspection report records that the DGCA told the ministry the NOC submitted by Drone Federation India was not genuine and recommends penal action against three DFI directors and its company secretary over the document.
A Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) inspection has flagged the alleged submission of a 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 records that the DGCA told the ministry the NOC was not genuine and recommends penal action against three DFI directors and its company secretary over the document. However, while the inspection officer recommended action under provisions of the Companies Act dealing with false statements and fraud, the later case against DFI and three of its directors does not include those provisions.
DFI had applied to change its name from “Drone Federation India” to “Drone Federation of India”. The proposed name had attracted an objection because it could give an impression of government patronage. As part of the name-change process, DFI submitted a purported NOC from the DGCA.
According to the ministry’s inspection report, the DGCA subsequently informed the ministry that the NOC was not genuine. The report states that the file number mentioned in the document did not exist in DGCA records. It also records that the signature on the NOC was attributed to an officer who had retired before the date appearing on the document.
The inspection report, on pages 59 and 60, records that the allegedly false DGCA document was submitted along with RUN applications. MCA Assistant Director Altaf M Shaikh concluded that three DFI directors and company secretary Anoop Kumar Pandey were liable for penal action 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 the signature of a director on a clarification letter. According to the inspection findings, the signature was allegedly copied from a Board Resolution. The report records penal liability under Section 158 in connection with the alleged irregularity.
DFI president Smit Shah denied any wrongdoing and said the matter is sub judice.
“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,” Shah told India Today.
However, documents relating to the subsequent prosecution before the 37th Court, Fort, Mumbai, show a difference between the findings recorded in the inspection report and the provisions ultimately invoked against DFI and its directors.
In the special case filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, DFI and its directors Rahat Kulshreshtha, Pravin Vinod Prajapati and Vipul Singh have been charged under Sections 134(8), 129(7) and 128(6) of the Companies Act.
These provisions relate to corporate reporting, financial statements 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 for penal action under those provisions.
The ministry later directed the Registrar of Companies to take action on the relevant findings of the inspection report. The difference between the inspection findings and the later prosecution has also been raised in a complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which alleges that officials did not act on the findings and raises allegations of possible corruption. The allegations in the complaint have not been established.
The DFI matter comes amid separate Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigations into alleged corruption involving DGCA officials in 2026. These include cases involving former Director of Flying Training Capt. Anil Gill and serving Deputy Director General Mudavath Devula over alleged bribery linked to approvals for drone imports.