| File Note: |
Sir, the point wise reply as sought by you is as under:
1. First, the reference has been given to the meeting with SSTE held in August, 2023. In the said meeting the matter w.r.t. pendency was discussed and officers expressed their opinions. no clear cut instruction was given... I have also gone through most of the circulars issued by the Board and have not found such instruction in which it is directed that the cases be dealt separately.. However, i would obatin personally from you......
2... Initially the case was recommended for refusal from RO due to non submission of mandatory document and certificate regarding area classification........ Accordingly, scn without hearing was given to the industry after approval from you.... Then on the basis of reply from RO it was again recommended to refuse the application on which you asked me to discuss the violaions w.r.t Air Act, 1981....
The matter was personally discussed with you and thus scn with hearing was issued to the industry.... Then the file was put up to you for approval of proceedings... Thus, to say that i issued the notice without discussing the matter with you is incorrect and not accepted by me.......
3. It has been mentioned that i have been giving mixed and confusing recommendations is harsh.... I have presented the facts purely on technical grounds as per observations raised by you from time to time.... However, you are the competent authority to decide the case and i have to give only recommendations.... Decision is only with the competent authority....
I still believe the issue of DEMAT of shares is purely related to the Air Act, 1981....
It is further mentioned that I am on election duty so the reply can be late and can lead of reflection of pendency in ocmms... It is requsted to mark the case to other officer.....
Submitted please... |
