Friday, September 6, 2019

Shivneel Gupta Vs. DCP (South East) Sarita Vihar & Vmake Vizas Pvt Ltd. | Case No. 568/1111/2018/10/5215-5221 | Dated: 05.09.2019



In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]


Case No. 568/1111/2018/10/5215-5221                   Dated: 05.09.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Shivneel Gupta
B-789, Gautampuri, Phase II,
Badarpur, South Delhi,
Delhi-110044.                                                  ................ Complainant

                               
Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police
(South-East)
Police Station, Sarita Vihar,
Delhi-110076.                                              ........... Respondent no. 1

The Director
Vmake Vizas Pvt. Ltd.
301-302, 3rd Floor, Sheetla House,
Building No. 73-74, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019 (India).                             ........... Respondent no. 2


Date of Hearing:   26.08.2019

Present:   Sh. Shivneel Gupta, Complainant in person.
                 Sh. Tarun Khetrpal, Legal Executive for Respondent no. 2.

           
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person with 50% locomotor disability sent emails to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi and other Ministers and MLAs regarding refund of full amount of money paid by him to Vmake Visas Pvt. Ltd., a company dealing in immigration consultancy.  An email dated 25.06.2019 was received in this Court from OSD to Hon’ble Minister of Social Welfare, GNCT of Delhi.  The complainant was advised to submit a copy of his disability certificate which he sent vide his email dated 31.10.2018 alongwith other papers. 
2.       Sh. Shivneel Gupta submitted that he approached office of respondent no. 2 for immigration to Canada in November, 2015.  His ielts overall band score was 5.  After checking his ielts score card, he was promised by the functionaries of respondent no. 2 that it would take maximum 5-6 months for immigration. 
3.       He further submitted that a contract was entered into between the complainant and the respondent No. 2 in connection with immigration of the complainant to Quebec, a province in Canada on 20.11.2015 vide case ID 34643.  The company assigned his case to different case managers who did not guide and inform him about the status of his case even though he had made payment of Rs. 84,370/- for various purposes.  At that time, he was staying with his parents in Jammu.  His father also called the owner of the company, Sh. Ankit Kapoor.  On 30th April, 2016, i.e. after just 5 months of applying, they asked him to appear in ielts exam again which cost Rs. 13,000/-.  The complainant also inter-alia submitted that he also tried to commit suicide as he lost his hard earned money and the company had been assuring him and giving him false hope till 25.06.2018 that they would do the needful or refund his money.  They had been misleading him all along.
4.       The complaint was taken up with the respondents under the  Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Act” vide notice dated 14.11.2018 and the respondents were directed to submit their versions by 15.12.2018.  Instead of responding to the notice, the respondent no. 2 sent a copy of its letter dated 13.12.2018 addressed to Sh. Shivneel Gupta, New Delhi which is reproduced below:
“Dear Shivneel,
This is the official reply from Vmake Visas for your PR Process which you started with us on 20-Nov-2015. Though your contract has been expired but we are still taking your case forward for one intake more as we both wanted things to be resolved amicably and you also agreed for the same after you came for the meeting to Vmake Visas Office and you were satisfied after meeting Mr. Ankit Kapoor.
As you were not eligible for any refund which was told to you in the meeting and you also agreed on the same and now you are preparing for the IETLS which is a mandate for the PR process and you are required to get band in the IELTs score which will make you eligible to apply for your PR process for Canada
But now things been resolved and we are taking your case further and not even charging anything from you as our consultancy fee.  We have even provided you the mock material for IETLS exams which you can study and clear his exams with flying colors.
Also let’s take things in positive way further and a New Case Manager has also been assigned to as well who is coordinating with you on regular basis.
Now things have been resolved as discussed in meeting and all notices you have sent stand void after the discussion we had in Vmake Visas Office as the case is being taken further subject to your IELTs Score.
For Vmake Visas Pvt Ltd

Authorised Signatory”
5.       The complainant in his email to respondent no. 2 inter-alia stated that he was assured by his employee, Ms. Akansha, the first case manager that with ielts score of 5 bands would ensure his immigration before the validity of his IELTS score would expire on 01.08.2016.  However, for three years, no satisfactory service was provided to him. 
6.       Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District transferred the complaint to Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East District vide letter dated 03.12.2018 for necessary action.
7.       After considering the response of respondent no. 2 and the rejoinder of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 19.03.2019 and only the complainant appeared.  He submitted that he paid fee for processing his permanent residentship (PR) in Canada with respondent no. 2 in November, 2015.  The functionaries of the company told him that if he did not get PR in six months, his money would be refunded.  The concerned case managers used to assure him that his work would be done shortly.  When nothing happened even after six months, he came to Delhi from Jammu to personally check the status of his case.  He was told that it would take some more time. Thereafter, he requested to refund his money.  His case manager even took his bank account for refunding the money.  However, in December, 2018, the owner of the company stated that the money cannot be refunded.  His case manager Sh. Shaqib also scared him that if the complainant insisted for refund or continued sending negative emails, he may lose his job.  In short, the complainant stated that every time he approached them for refund, they would motivate him to wait for some more time and thus wasted his time.
8.       He also stated that he was called to the Police Station Gautam Puri, Badarpur on 14 December, 2018.  The police official informed him that the matter pertained to Kalkaji Police station. Subsequently, Sh. Satyendra, SI of Kalkaji Police Station recorded his statement and assured him that appropriate action would be taken for refund of his money.
9.       The respondents were directed to submit their versions of the case within 7 days and to appear on the next date of hearing.
10.     On 03.05.2019, the complainant produced some audio conversations which indicate that till July 2018, there had not been much progress in his case.    The conversation does not indicate any deficiency on the part of the complainant with regard to fulfilling the requirements of the contract.  The complainant also submitted that he did not receive any communication from respondent no. 2 about any deficiency in his files or rejection of his application by Govt. of Canada or any other authority.
11.     Ms. Kulmit Kaur Handa, HR Manager in the office of respondent no. 2 did not have the copies of any communications that the company might have exchanged with the complainant about the status of his application. She however, produced a  copy of letter dated 21.12.2018 of SI Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi asking the company Director to attend the enquiry on 22.12.2018 in connection with the complaint filed by the complainant.  DCP, South-East was therefore directed to submit the report relating to the case by 10.06.2019.
12.     As there were no papers indicating provision of services to the complainant by respondent no. 2 as per the contract, respondent no. 2 was directed to submit the relevant papers, particularly the correspondence/intimation to the complainant during the period of the contract and thereafter regarding the status of the application of the complainant and the details of the fees paid by him by 10.06.2019.
13.     The respondent no. 2 was absent on 04.07.2019.  The audio recording between the complainant and the company’s owner/ functionaries/employees played during the hearing indicated that the representatives of the company have indeed been promising the complainant to refund the amount. 
14.     It was observed that Vmake Visas Pvt. Ltd. has been incorporated with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 08.09.2013 in Haryana with the address at 2L -59A, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana and the company has been communicating with the respondent from its office at 305, Sheetla House, Building no. 73-74 Nehru Place, New Delhi.  The respondents were given the last opportunity to submit the information by 21.06.2019 and the provision of Section 93 which provides for fine for failing to produce documents or information was brought to the notice of the respondents, which is reproduced below:
“Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given thereunder, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 25,000/- in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-  for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”
15.       The Legal Executive of Vmake Visas Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 2, Sh. Tarun Khetarpal submitted the reply vide email dated 03.07.2019 which is reproduced below:
“Respected Sir,
1.        That Mr. Shivneel Gupta came to our Nehru Place on 20th November’2015 for applying Canadian Visa as we are a private limited company who assist and advice people who want to immigrate and travel to their selected country. That Mr Shivneel paid us Rs 57,250 for taking consultancy/services for immigration for one calendar year.  Accordingly, an agreement was executed between us and Shivneel Gupta on 20-11-2015. The copy of agreement is attached with this mail.
2.        That our consultant filed his WES details on 26-12-2015. Mr. Shivneel submitted his IELTS score card to us in which scores were less and he was only eligible for one Canadian province, Manitoba.  So our consultant filed his case for Manitoba on 07- 05 -2016.
3.        That Mr. Shivneel was asked by our consultant to give the IELTS exam again, so that we can file his immigration case for other Canadian provinces but he kept on delaying the process and whenever a call was made to him by our consultant regarding IELTS, he gave excuses from one pretext to another.
 4.       That on 23-05-2017, our consultant marked a mail to Mr. Shivneel that we are closing his case as he was not willing to give the IELTS exam and one calendar year was already over as per the agreement. After receiving our mail regarding closing of case, Mr. Shivneel contacted us again on 26-05-2017 and told us that he is ready to give the IELTS exam and he has started preparing for it.  On 10-6-2017, our consultant contacted Mr. Shivneel again and enquired about IELTS exam that he is preparing for exam and will soon give a update to us.
5.        That from 11-6-2017 to 13-04-2019 our consultant has contacted Mr. Shivneel through calls and mails again and again and requested him to give the IELTS exam, so that our consultant can apply his case for other Canadian provinces but he hasn’t provided us, his IELTS score till date.
6.        That Mr. Shivneel is not eligible for refund as we have provided him consultancy/services for more than 3 years and there is no deficiency on our part. IELTS exam is essential for immigration process but Mr. Shivneel is not ready to give the exam and he is asking for refund from us which is illegal as per law. In order to harass us, Mr Shivneel has filed a false and frivolous case in your respected forum.
7.        That we provide consultation/services for immigration to our clients and we are not a part of any government authority or embassy.  We can assist and advice people who want to immigrate to their selected country.  The final decision on all visa applications rests with relevant government department in respective country.  We can’t refund the fees paid by the clients for our consultation/services if they are not willing to give the IELTS exam which is essential for immigration purpose.  


Thanks & Regards
Tarun Khetrapal
Legal Executive
Vmake Visas Pvt. Ltd.”
16.     On 04.07.209, Sh. Manmeet Malik, SI, Police Station Kalakaji, South-East District, who was handling the case, appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 and submitted that complaint filed by Sh. Shivneel Gupta was being dealt by Sh. Satender Gulia, SI who has been transferred.  The draft reply has been put up for approval of Joint Commissioner, Southern Range and will be filed in 2-3 days. 
17.     As per the contract dated 20.11.2015, the complainant’s application with case ID 34643 was for Canada Provincial Nomination Program (Quebec).  Para 2 of the contract reads as-
“2. In case of the visa being rejected on the following grounds, no refund from our side will be issued.
a)...
h) The client falls short to get the needed score in IELTS/French to meet the eligibility criteria and as advised by Vmake Viasas consultant”
18.     It was observed that the company should know what the requirements are for a particular province and if the candidate is unlikely to get through, there is no justification to accept the application for a particular province or country and charge the fee. 
19.     The representatives of respondent no. 2 sought two weeks to submit additional supporting documents. 
20.     Respondent no. 1 vide reply dated 16.07.2019 submitted as under:
“An enquiry into the matter has been got conducted through ACP/Kalkaji/SED. During the course of enquiry, EO examined the complainant namely Sh. Shivneel Gupta and also recorded his statement, wherein he reiterated the allegations mentioned in the original complaint. Further, a notice was served to the alleged company, wherein the alleged company informed that the case of the applicant is 3 years old and in private companies, employees change their jobs frequently, therefore, many case managers were assigned to the complainant. Further alleged company provided the procedure followed in the case of the complainant along with the copy of contract of services, duly signed by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the contract of the complainant with the alleged company has expired, still the company is taking his case forward. The alleged company also gave clarity on other aspects as mentioned by the complainant. From the reply of the alleged company, it has been cleared that the alleged company has forwarded his case for permanent residency programme of Canada but same has not cleared because complainant's IELTS score card has expired and without the IELTS score card, company cannot process any immigration application as per government rule. The alleged company did not hide any aspects regarding the PR process of Canada and the alleged company also forward the case of the complainant for further processing, however, the same is not cleared.
In view of the reply of alleged company and contents of the complaint, the matter is related to a civil dispute. No police action is warranted at this stage.
Yours faithfully,


Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
South East Distt., New Delhi”
21.     On 26.08.2019, respondent no. 2 submitted a written statement dated 26.08.2019 which is reproduced below, part of which is though repetition of his earlier submissions:
“Respected Sir
1.            That Mr. Shivneel Gupta came to our Nehru Place on "20th November 2015 for applying Canadian Visa as we are a private limited company who assist and advice people who want to immigrate and travel to their selected country. That Mr Shivneel paid us Rs 57,250 for taking consultancy/services for immigration for one calendar year. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between us and Shivneel Gupta on 20-11-2015.
2.            That the case of Shivneel Gupta is very old, so we were not able to give the complete information in previous reply. Now we have found that we had applied his case for Quebec on 17th January 2016.  The screenshot of what we had applied for Quebec is attached with this reply.
3.            But his immigration case for Quebec has not been processed as individuals whose application for CSQ were given between July 8th 2013 and March 8th, 2017 has been cancelled by the Quebec immigration authorities. The news containing these facts are attached with this reply.
4.            While his Quebec file was in process, Mr. Shivneel Gupta was asked by our consultant to give the IELTS exam again, so that we can file his immigration case for other Canadian provinces but he kept on delaying the process and whenever a call was made to him by our consultant regarding IELTS, he gave excuses from one pretext to another.
5.            That on 23-05.2017, our consultant marked a mail to Mr. Shivneel that we are closing his case as he was not willing to give the IELTS exam and one calendar year was already over as per the agreement. After receiving our mail regarding closing of case, Mr. Shivneel contacted us again on 26-05 2017 and told us that he is ready to give the IELTS exam and he has started preparing for it. On 10-6-2017, our consultant contacted Mr. Shivneel again and enquired about IELTS exam that he is preparing for exam and will soon give a update to us.
6.            That from 11-6-1017 to 13-04 2.019 our consultant has contacted Mr. Shivneel through calls and mails again and again and requested him to give the IELTS exam, so that our consultant can apply his case for other Canadian provinces but he hasn't provided us, his IELTS score till date.
7.            That Mr. Shivneel is not eligible for refund as we have provided him consultancy/services for more than 3 years and there is no deficiency on our part.  IELTS exam is essential for immigration process but Mr. Shivneel is not ready to give the exam and he is asking for refund from us which is illegal as per law. In order to harrass us, Mr. Shivneel has filed a false and frivolous case in your respected forum.
8.            That we provide consultation/services for immigration to our clients and we are not a part of any government authority or embassy. We can assist and advice people who want to immigrate to their selected country. The final decision on all visa applications rests with relevant government department in respective country. We can't refund the fees paid by the clients for our consultation/services if they are not willing to give the IELTS exam which is essential for immigration purpose.


Thanks & Regards
 Tarun Khetrapal
Legal Executive
Vmake Visas Pvt. Ltd.”
22.     It is observed that no correspondence whatsoever has been produced for the relevant period from the date of contract to the date of validity of IELTS score, i.e. from 20.11.2015 to 01.08.2016.  In effect, the contract was for a little over 8 months.  In view of the terms of the contract, it had no relevance in the case of the complainant beyond 01.08.2016.   
23.     The contents in the screenshot in support of the claim of respondent no. 2 for having applied for Quebec on 17.01.2015 are in French language.  Its English translation reads as under:
“In view of the regulation on the subject of immigration to Quebec, it is no more possible to make a request without being invited to do so by the Ministry”.
24.     The respondent no. 2 should have known this before applying for it on 17.01.2015, if any at all did it. As per the “Quebec Regular Skilled Worker Immigration Program aC” Class Action Settlement”, the “notice of Settlement Approval” stated to have been published as persons falling in different Group-Categories may be eligible for compensations following Feb 19, 2018 order of Supreme Court of Quebec.  The case of the complainant falls under Group 3 mentioned in the papers submitted by the respondent no. 2, which is reproduced below:
“Group 3: Individuals whose application for a CSQ was filed between July 8th, 2013 and March 8th, 2017; and whose CSQ application was refused subsequent to the entry into force of the selection grid on March 8th, 2017”.
25.     The complainant was therefore eligible for some compensation, which the respondent no. 2 should have followed up; but did not do so.    
 26.    As the respondent no. 2 had not submitted the copies of the correspondence made with the complainant after the agreement was executed on 20.11.2015, the representative of the respondent no. 2 was directed on the last date of hearing on 26.08.2019 to provide the emails that were sent to the complainant regarding filing of his application, WES details for Quebec and Manitoba within 3 days. 
27.     As per the email dated 27.08.2019 of Sh. Tarun Khetrapal, representing respondent no. 2, the WES details of the complainant were filed on 26.12.2015, his papers for immigration to Quebec were filed on 17.01.2016 and for Manitoba to 07.05.2016.  It has been stated that proper communication was sent to the complainant through the company’s team when they filed his WES details and his case for Quebec and Manitoba. Since the case for immigration of the complainant is very old of 2016 and at the time of filing of his immigration case, they were using outlook server through which mails were sent to the complainant.  The company has changed the server last year and is using Gmail server now.  Therefore, it is impossible for their IT team to retrieve those mails which were sent to the complainant three years ago. Therefore, the company is unable to provide the communications that the team sent to the complainant in connection with his immigration case.  
28.     The complainant has also submitted a synopsis vide which he has questioned the authenticity of screenshot that the respondent no. 2 has submitted about filing of his case for Quebec.  Although his name appears on that, UCI Code (Unique Client Identifier) is not indicated in that screenshot.  He has also given the link of the Canada Govt. website.  Respondent No. 2 never provided him this screen shot earlier.  In view of this, the complainant expresses his apprehension that there could be a possibility of creating a screen shot of this type.  He has denied having received any intimation about rejection of his immigration request for Quebec.  He has again attached the audio recordings to indicate that the company’s employees promised him that his papers would be filed in Canada Govt. website well before expiry of his IELTS score.  Mr. Shaqib, the manager of the company rather promised him that his money would be refunded while Ms. Agnes promised 80% refund. 
29.     From the records submitted by the parties and the audio recordings, it is observed that admittedly the complainant with his ielts score of 5 bands was eligible for immigration to Quebec at the time the agreement was entered into for one calendar year. The immigration application was accordingly made for Canada Provincial Nomination Programme (Quebec).  Some of the relevant conditions of the agreement are as under:
“i)      That if the client is unable to meet the ielts criteria and his/her Visa gets disapproved, Vmake Visas Pvt. Ltd is not responsible.   
ii)       Vmake Visas can offer no guarantee on the time taken to process to your application once the case has been submitted to the relevant Govt. Authority.
iii)      If the quality of our services, including accuracy of the advice we have provided, proves to be inadequate or incorrect, we will provide refund of the fees charge till date.
iv)      If you decided to withdraw from the process for any reason then you have to pay the full fee plus the fee for any additional services as set out above.” 
30.     From the condition at 29. i) above, it appears that respondent no. 2 might accept and file the immigration application of an applicant even with a low or no IELTS score which is unacceptable.  However, in the case of the complainant, he had an ielts score of 5 and as per the papers submitted by respondent no. 2, the minimum required score for Quebec was 4.  The complainant’s IELTS score at the time of entering into the agreement for one year on 20.11.2015 was valid for only 8 months up to 01.08.2016 and not for one year.  Therefore in view of condition at 29. ii), the period of validity of IELTS score of the complainant does not seem enough for such an exercise that is dependent on so many extraneous factors.
31.     In one of the video recordings, the concerned employee of the company is heard saying that the complainant’s case would be cleared very fast, when the complainant mentioned that his ielts score was valid upto 2016 only.  When he asked whether it would be appropriate to start the process at that stage, she advised in the positive.  The complainant clearly expressed his fear that if his case did not get through, it would be difficult for him to appear for ielts exams again. The scribblings made by Ms. Akansha on the letter head of respondent no. 2 indicate the time to complete the immigration process as 7 months, i.e. before 02 August, 2016.  Apparently, the complainant was led to believe the concerned employee representing the respondent no. 2.   
32.     In view of the above, the respondent no. 2 should have made it clear to the complainant in writing that his case may or may not be cleared during the validity of his ielts score.  In that case, the contract for a calendar year was not relevant and any service that the respondent no. 2 claims to have provided to the complainant is meaningless as it does not serve any purpose as far as his case for immigration to Quebec is concerned.  The application for Manitoba of course was an exercise in futility.  There is no record that shows the respondent no. 2 pointing out any shortcoming in the documents submitted by the complainant and their quality.
33.     In the absence of any supporting documents/emails, it is apparent that the quality of service provided to the complainant by respondent no. 2 was not as promised.  Moreover, with a validity period of 8 months of the ielts score, the respondent no. 2 should have been more careful and obtained an undertaking from the complainant. It is difficult to buy the argument of the respondent no. 2 that because of the change of server, the company cannot retrieve the relevant documents/emails that are extremely crucial to the case which is about a person with disability trying to immigrate to another country and hence the same is not acceptable. The authenticity of the screenshot without UCI Code to prove that the complainant’s documents were filed, is also in question and there is no justification for not sending the same to the complainant for his information, which was so important for him and his career. 
34.     It is also observed that the entire amount of service charges, i.e. Rs. 57,250/- was taken from the complainant in one instalment.  The payments should have been staggered and linked to various stages of the work done and should have been part of the agreement.  Filing of the application for Quebec at a time when change in policy was imminent and the short duration of validity of IELTS score of the complainant coupled with frequent change of case managers, should have been avoided by the respondent no. 2 or the complainant should have been made amply aware and adequately warned about risks involved and an undertaking taken from him.  
35.     It is also observed from the papers stated to have been received in January, 2016 in respect of the complainant from immigration, though the authenticity of the same is in question, that application of the complainant was not rejected on account of any deficiency in the papers/information submitted by the complainant.  The inadequacy in service also appears apparent from the fact that the respondent no. 2 claims to have applied for immigration of the complainant to Manitoba without his asking or any agreement with him for it and knowing that his ielts score band would expire before any positive outcome. 
36.     From the fact of this case, it is apparent that there is a need for strict regulations and robust mechanism to check and ensure compliances in general and in case of applicants with disabilities in particular before registering a company or consultant for Immigration services.
37.     In light of the above discussion and findings, the following recommendations are made:
i)        Respondent no. 2 should refund the entire amount of consultation fee and other charges taken from the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 
ii)       The concerned authorities in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs should mandate the companies to ensure availability of appropriate competencies before allowing them to practice/provide services for immigration to other countries, as it directly affects careers of youth including those with disabilities and the image of India in the country to which immigration is processed. 
 (iii)    Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs should jointly frame comprehensive guidelines, the terms and conditions, etc. and a common format of agreement to be entered into between an immigration agency and the applicants with disabilities so that occurrence of situations as in this case, are minimised and people with disabilities are not harassed and cheated.
(iv)     The application of a candidate with disability whose ielts score band does not have enough period of validity should be accepted only with the written undertaking from the candidate to apply at his/her own risk and retain the documentary proof of the same.
(v)     All the immigration companies/agencies should also be directed to ensure accessibility to their premises for persons with disabilities in accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development in March 2016.
38.     This Court and the complainant be informed about the action taken on the above recommendations within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.
39.     The case is disposed of.
40.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 05th day of September, 2019.


                                                                 (T.D. Dhariyal)
           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Copy to:
     1.    OSD to Hon’ble Minister of Social Welfare, C-Wing 7th Level, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi GNCT of Delhi. Email: rajendrapal.gautam@gov.in  : For information of Hon’ble Minister of Social Welfare.
2.    Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. Email psfs@mea.gov.in : For information and necessary action as deemed fit.
3.    Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001. Email: secy.mca@nic.in : For information and necessary action as deemed fit.
4.    Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Sarojini House, 6, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi-110001 : For information.

Posted by at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)