Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information
requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in
respect of
IACCS project executing by BEL. Costing huge Rs 7900 Cr public money involved
in defence strategic preparedness program.
Whether BEL informed to IACCS Directorate that BEL Corporate Vigilance had received an email complaint: dated 31st August 2017 Vigilance from Shri Manish Aggarwal, Advocate. Supreme Court of India regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL. Ghaziabad in the 10 construction sites projects allotted for defence. Yes or No
If yes, then provide the date of receiving such communication from BEL on above said matter..
Whether BEL informed to IACCS Directorate that BEL received complaint mails and letter from IACCS site regarding compromising in quality procedures like one such mail sent by an engineer on dated 2018-03-28 13:21 to Mr Solomon Paul Raj, Mgs (CO-VIG) Yes or No
As per enclose email – Also MECON reply to BEL (9 pages) after collapse of slopes may be referred for a wider view of the project. Provide that Whether IACCS Directorate, Air force received any communication from BEL in respect of above mention collapse of slopes in construction sites yes or no
If yes than provide that any inquiry committee constituted by Air force on misshape of IACCS project. Yes or No
It may please be noted the following information being shared with you is highly confidential and unofficial. For my official version you can officially request my higher management (for permission) for my statement as ex-site in-charge of PMC only and not as complainant. I am sharing these information because I find higher official of BEL impose lot of unethical verbal instruction on juniors unethically which is damaging for a PSU.
I was posted as site In-charge of MECON (PMC) and tried my best to act as whistleblower being a part of a project of national importance. I had issued innumerable mails and letter regarding quality issues of the project. But the engineer In-charge (AGM) and other higher officials (GM) from BEL desisted me verbally at Ghaziabad and at site not to follow quality procedures strictly on the pretext of progress of the project. They actually always blindly favoured the contractor anywhere and everywhere.
However, when we did not allow any relaxation in this regard and made deduction in bills wherever quality procedures were not followed, higher officials of BEL at Ghaziabad were not satisfied with XXXXX site in-charge (both of BEL& MECON] for not favouring the contractor and for following rule-book strictly. For that reason BEL GM&AGM transferred their own site incharge (Shri Ravi Kumar) and pressurized MECON to transfer Shri MK Haldar (Sr Mgr) of MECON in Sep 17 on the pretext that they did not perform satisfactorily,whereas actually it was just opposite. This was to instill a sense of fear so that other engineers fall in line.
BEL Vigilance took up the issue due to some complaint from other sources and Shri MM Roy {name not sure) of BEL Vigilance and team were to visit Salua site. BEL Ghaziabad became very Jittery on the news because I was the only engineer from BEUMECON at site who was there since inception of the project and was a whistleblower. They in connivance with the influential contractor again pressurized MECON management to remove me from site immediately and my transfer order was issued within 2 hrs on 15.03.18 with the release date of 19.03.13 so that I can be out of station before 23.03.18 after availing maximum 2 days joining leave.
Also it was intriguing and surprising, that the BEL vigilance team (all P5U employees with Police verification done) were not allowed at xxxx site by the Air force and this is first of such instance of refusal entry. Based on BEL site In-charge letter (all record available) even officials of unknown/roadside private firms were always allowed on producing of any govt. issued identify card (all record available with BEL site In-charge)
For all the aforesaid letters and emails (documentary evidences) you can approach file kept at MECON site office. Also MECON reply to BEL [9 pages] after collapse of slopes may be referred for a wider view of the project.
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information
requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of
M/s R D Konsultants, C-9, Vasant Kunj, Local Shopping Complex,,
Delhi – 110070. As per enclosed CVO, BEL investigation that firm name was
suggested by DRDO for consultancy work of Approx 7900 Cr IACCS project. In
investigation few documents revealed that M/s R D Konsultants claimed that the
firm involved in consultancy in DRDO projects worth 3000 Cr. In one document of
BEL two DRDO officials name is reflected while in processing of awarding
consultancy assignment of said IACCS project
WhetherM/s R D Konsultants claimed of consultancy assignments in
DRDO past and present projects are correct (document enclosed )Yes or No
If yes then correct value of
consultancy only amount paid by DRDO to M/s R D Konsultants till date.
Please provide that M/s R D Konsultants Partnership
Company has any kind of registration in DRDO. Yes/No
Please confirm that the names of
DRDO officials
Shri S K Singh, Additional CCE, Shri M S Rathore, Scientist E are reflected
in BEL tender processing documents are
correct (document enclosed) Yes/No
Please provide the copy of BEL
request for these officers to attend such tender processing meeting if any
yes/No
If no then these officer can
attend such tender processing meeting unofficially yes/no
Note – the matter is
related to very high value corruption Rs 7900 cr as per media reports
published, it is observed that as per CVO investigation report that DRDO officials
were played a vital role in awarding
consultancy assignment to M/s R D Konsultants approx 16 cr.
Enclosed – BEL tender processing document page where two
DRDO name is reflected
M/s R
D Konsultants document where he claimed the work.
Registration Number MODEF/R/2019/51863
BEL CVO Recommendations
BHARAT
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATE
VIGILANCE
No.:21328/399&426/BEL./GAD/18-19
Date
29th March 2019
SUB:
Detailed enquiry done on the allegation of irregularties & Gross Violations
in the appointment of Design Consultants and in the execution of IACCS Project.
This has a reference to email complain: dated 31st August 2017 received at Corporate Vigilance from Shri‘ Mimish Aggarwal, Advocate. Supreme Court of India regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL. Ghaziabad in the 10 construction sites projects allotted for defence and also regarding appointment of Mr Manish Goyal. Corporate Vigilance has verified the identity of the complainant . The complainant was verified through the stated email id advn1maggarwaI@gmail.com.
A Fact verification request
was sent to the V0/GAD vide ref. 21328/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 07.09.2017.
Based on the request of VO/GAD vide email dated 28″‘ September 2017, to
appoint technical personnel for investigating the case, Corporate Vigilance has
constituted the following Technical committee vide Ref No.
21328,/399/BEI./GAD/17-18 dated 14th December 2017‘.
a) Shri Satyanarayana H N, Sr DGM (Civil/BG)
b) Shri. Y.K Sharma then DGM (lACCS-Infra)/GAD
c) Shri M M Roy, then DGM (Vigilance/Central GAD
& Delhi Offices]
d) Shri.Anil Kumar Gupta, then DGM&VO (NCS&SCCS]
There was a request from GM (NCS)
vide letter ref 13708/143)/GM(NCS),/GAD dated 14th December 2017
regarding importance of Shri. Y K. Sharma in the IACCS project and also there
was an email dated 20th February 2018 from Shri. Satyanarayana HR. Sr
DGM (Civil/BG), regarding his ill health, which were received at Corporate
Vigilance. Hence the committee has been reconstituted vide Ref.
21323/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 01st March 2018, with the following members, after
discussion with Shri. Charan Singh, the .then GM (Radar & Unit Head) for
the nomination of Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja. AGM (CS/GAD).
a) Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja, AGM (CS/GAD)
b) Shri. Syed Shakir Hussein, DGM (Civil Estate)
/Bg.Cx
c) Shrl Madan Mohan Roy then DGM (Vigilance /Central
GAD & Delhi Offices]
The above committee has to
make an independent verification of the complaint, study the contracts
pertaining to the same and submit its report The technical committee has
visited the —— site on 22.03.2018 & 23.03.2018. The committee had
failed and deviated from the main complaint and submitted its two page
perfunctory Report pertaining only to —— site without proper investigation vide
nil ref dated 20.03.2019.
Copy of the report is
enclosed as Annexure-A. The technical committee’s report was irrelevant and
does not cover the allegations of the total complaint The enquiry done by the
technical committee pertains only to —— site without going into the
allegations and details contained in the complaint
As the V0’s report was not
Comprehensive and incomplete, this has necessitated appointing a Senior Officer
of repute for conducting the investigation in total. Corporate Vigilance had
appointed Shri. MM Pandey GM [PS], the senior officer of repute, as investigation
officer, to investigate the above‘ matters related to cases vide Ref
21328/399/BEL/GAD/18-19″dated dared 18th July 2018.
The investigation officer [IO) & GM [P5] had submitted a detailed report on 03-10-2018
There are very important observations made by the IO in his inquiry report, in the subject investigation. After careful study of IO’s report» such observations are concurred and agreed upon by Corporate Vigilance. Important observations from IO’s report are enclosed
The lapses and serious violations observed are enclosed
After examination of
Technical committee report. Fact verification report of Mr
MM Roy, VO/GAD and detailed investigation report of IO & GM {P5} and
related documents’ the following are observations of Corporate Vigilance. ‘ –
Corporate Vigilance
Observations;
As per BPE guidelines given under letter no
BPE/GL/025,178,!Prodn./PCR/2/77,/BPE/Prodn. Dtt 15 July, 1978. Which was circulated under” CVC circular No.
31.-IRC 1 dated 10.01.1983, for any new projects expansions, modernization/
modification of the existing projects involving an expenditure of Rs. 5 crores
and above, “the final selection and commissioning of the consultant should
be done with the approval of the board of public sector enterprises”. In
the subject case of appointment of M/s RD Konsultants during 2011 & 2013,
the files are approved bv CMD. However board approvals were not taken in the
subject cases.
As per CVC guidelines, the pre-qualification public notice should be issued to enlist names
-of suitable consultants. However the same was not Followed by the committee
and hence CVC guidelines in this regard was found violated.
3)
As per noting mentioned by Shri
P.K. Bhola, the then DGM[Marketing), at the initial stages, BEL has taken the
support from M/s DRDO citing non expertise in the field of underground
structure, and went on to appoint M/s RD Konsultants on nomination and adhoc basis for the preparation
of Preliminary Project Report at a cost
of Rs 13.23 Lakhs. However there were no “documents or written correspondences
are available in the file, indicating the recommendation of DRDO. As per above
CVC guidelines “Even though individually such works are less than Rs 5
Crores, it is necessary that the appointment of consultant should not be made
arbitrary or ad-hoc. In the subject case, the CVC guidelines with respect to
appointment of consultant was found violated.
4)
The value of contract awarded to
Mfs RD Konsultants during 2013 is Re. 15.04 Crores. The Scope of work includes
a]
Preparation of draft detailed project
report of all 10 sites including cost estimates on non-exceeding basis with conceptual
design of structure and services, geotechnical and topographical surveys and
preparation of final detailed project report for all the 10 sites.
b]
Detailed design engineering of
structures and services, preparation of working drawings tender documents etc.
c]
Regular designer supervision and
submission of inputs/ working drawings /documents for work to be executed at
all 10 sites up to completion and handing over of sites to user
5)
It is observed that, . there were
suppression and concealment of facts by the Committee, in the proposal
initiated during 2013, with respect of appointment of Consultants during 2011, for
preparation of Preliminary Project Report. It is pertinent to mention that in
the proposal for appointment of consultants during 2011, there is a noting from
Sr.DGM(F)/CO that as per CVC guidelines issued vide Ref 011/VGL./063-134657
dated 24th June 2011, if M,/s RD Konsultants is hired.as consultant
for preparing preliminary project report then he cannot be considered for
future similar re1uirements for IACCS project. Though the proposal was agreed
by CMD, these facts are not brought in the consecutive file raised and the
committee have succeeded to give order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.
‘
6) Because of concealment of information
wrt previous appointment and delinking of old files and notings, led to the
misrepresentation and concealment of Fads
which resulted in placing of order on prefixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants though
open tender has been called for formality.
7)
During the Open tender, though 26
agencies have responded to expression of interest, it was reduced to 6 agencies
after pre qualification. These points are brought in detail in IO’s report lt is
observed that the committee during the initial screening has brought down 26
agencies to 14 agencies with shallow scrutiny and with total arbitrariness,
as-explained-by lO. After presentations further screening has resulted in
qualifying only 6 agencies. It is pertinent to mention that after presentations
M/s Super Dynamics was disqualified citing only two years turnover against
required pre-qualification of 3 year turnover. However preferential treatment
was given to M / s RD Konsultants and the same prequalification criteria was not
applied uniformly especially to M/s RD Konsultants. This shows a clear cut case
of vendor favouritism.
8)
During evaluation of
prequalification criteria, the committee had violated the CVC guidelines and
company’s work contract procedures with respect to evaluation of documents with
respect to turnover submitted by M/5 RD Konsultants, non-evaluation of relevant
documents pertaining to works completed by M/s RD Konsultants but only taken on
face value and non-visit of sites completed by Mfs RD Konsultants. The details
are brought out in the I0’s report enclosed at Annexure-C. It appears that
wrongful clearance was provided to M/s RD Konsultants and the committee had
facilitated M.s RD Konsultrants for-prequalification
by violating the Company‘ s procedures,
to place the order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.
9) The
committee during evaluation of pre-qualification criteria had created confused
trends by changing the pre-qualification criteria twice without anv reason and
during such changes, post facto approvals are taken from CMD forcing the
management to committee’s decision. The dilution of prequalification criteria by
the committee had subsequently led to the qualification of M/s RD Konsultants.
It is observed that the pre-qualification criteria were not defined properly at
the initial stages of tender. In this subject case, it is a clear cut and
definitive violation of CV(I guidelines. .
10) It is further observed, the agency M/s
RD Konsultants was established during April 2010
Recommendations:
To blacklist M/s RD Konsultants for the fraudulent transactions with M/s BEL and also as the agency had involved in collusion of interest by executing the works through his affiliates M/s CS constructions Pvt Ltd, through subcontracting from M/s L&T. which has resulted in conflict of interest in the transactions with BEL . Financial penalty to be levied on M/s RD Konsultants as one way of punishment.
Disciplinary Proceedings to be initiated on the committee members for violating company’s procedures & CVC guidelines and facilitated the selection of M/s RD Konsultants during evaluation of prequalification, without scrutinizing the submission of works experience, site visits and clearing the fake turn over documents of M/s RD Konsultants. Theviolations were brought in the Corporate Vigilance observations points 1-15.
The following committee members are
to be held responsible even though few of the delinquent officers are retired
R K
Handa then GM(NCS) – Retired
Gurjeet
Singh then Sr. DGM(CS) – Retired
T.K.
Moitra then DGM(F&T)
Virender
Kumar then DGM(AC) CS
Saleem
Parveez. Manager (Civil) CS
3 With respect to appointment of Mr. Manish Goyal, it is observed that his experience falls short of minimum criteria of 10 years. These facts are not checked by HR/GAD. Disciplinary Proceedings on Shri. Dibyendu Bidyanta, AGM(HR&A) & Shri. B.K. Pant, DGM (HR&A) who are involved in the recruitment of Shri. Manish Goyal, as per CDA rules. Mr. Manish Goyal shall be kept under suspension henceforth for fair conduct of department/legal proceedings.
4 The unit has not prepared their own
instructions and procedure duly approved by the board for the appointment of
consultants to ensure that the selection is made with maximum attention to the
suitability, competence and proven track record.
CCTVs installed at the behest of
vigilance has not kept in proper record which led to non-maintenance of
measurement books, subleasing and collusion of parties.
It
is important to mention that IACCS is a time bound project of armed forces viz
Air Force. Hence care to be taken to ensure customer get real value for money procedural
proprietaries are maintained, no collusion of interest and involve customer at
all possible levels, abiding by CVC guidelines and no corrupt practices are
involved, in such important projects.
To 20th February 2015
Hon’ble
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Min. of Defence, Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi-110011
SUBJECT
Request for assign scientific work to DR. A.K. SINGH, DIRECTOR, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ so that he could not influence the probe and temper the evidences and not able to protect DRDO’s corrupt officials and also not able to support corrupt DRDO Directors to harass the whistle blowers.
Honourable Sir,
It is requested to sake of DRDO image, productivity, to save money to curtailing in court cases, to protect honest scientists and whistle blowers please reshuffle immediately the DRDO scientists who are involved in non scientific assignments since 10 -15 years and main reason of DRDO’s current non productive image. These incompetent scientists are great example of exemplary carrier growth without doing science in DRDO. Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ case is on the top, Dr R K Jain who is the boss of Scientists recruitment centre master mind of pushing all incompetent scientists on the top and country facing tremendous loss in respect of technology development, in respect of wastage in money and he was enjoyed his three consequent out staying promotion without doing science.
Sir, if you ask young real scientists, not incompetent ones, who come through LDCE will certainly going to pin point these two great scientists the main reason behind the downfall of DRDO.
The DRDO is great organisation in term of HR qualification enhancement. There are hundreds of examples where someone joined DRDO as peon/security guard or casual labour or Technician and within five to 10 years year span he become Technical Officer or in some cases scientists.
If you enquire DRDO regarding this kind of example of fake qualifications you will found thousands of degree diploma cases from unrecognised centre without doing study only managed. This is the major reason of DRDO’s corruption, nepotism and above all degradation of DRDO HR quality.
On 15th February 2015 DRDO, RAC conducted the limited departmental examination for scientist ‘B’ post for DRDO’s employees, you will find more than 90% cases candidates not having properly UGC or ACETE or DCE approved degrees. The certificates they enclosed are from recognised universities or institutes but the process of acquiring degrees are totally not recognised as per UGC norms.
And best part is that these two duos (Dr A K Singh & Dr. R K Jain) are the key persons to organise the game plan the application format was designed such a way that the degree acquiring process not able to revealed the ineligibility of candidate..
But interestingly till date they have not found single case only with the help of RTI four high profile cases were exposed resulted two scientists job was annulled and two are under process and Ex Defence Minister approved for CBI inquiry on 14th October 2013 and also given approval for reconsider the DRDO recruitments through UPSC,
Sir, if government is serious about to revamp DRDO and make it productive worth organisation than first thing scarp RAC & CEPTAM immediately. These two bodies are engaged almost more than 25 scientists and number of technical manpower. Both establishments are den of corruption and nepotism. Because of these two establishments DRDO getting third grade manpower.
Main evidence of these establishments working screens the recruitments and promotions and court cases and RTIs which are sufficient to justify the above statement.
I have filed following complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ.
DM letter table 20 feb
In this connection I got Letter No. DVS/02/2053/P/63 dated 12 Feb 2015 from Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO, Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi for confirmation to my complaint dated 14 Nov 2014 to Hon’ble Defence Minister (mentioned at sr. no. 4 above). Copy enclosed as Annexure-1 and I sent the confirmation vide letter dated 20 Feb 2015. Copy enclosed as Annexure-2.
Sir, on 25 March 2014 the Supreme Court of India told N. Srinivasan to step down as BCCI president so that a fair investigation may be conducted. The court found it “nauseating” that he should hold on to the post despite various courts censuring him.
On 27th November,2014 the Supreme Court said that N Srinivasan’s conflict of interest was “obvious” as he also owned a team i.e. CSK in the IPL. The court also asked BCCI if it was open to have fresh polls for a new board without N Srinivasan.
Accordingly Mr. N.Srinivasan announced that he was stepping aside from the post of President of the BCCI until the probe was completed ostensibly.
[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4235 OF 2014 with CIVIL APPEAL NO.4236 OF 2014 and SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014 , Supreme Court Of India]
In the light of the above facts stated above, I kindly request that for fair probe on complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, DOP, and request assigned him some other scientific assignment as per his credentials so that he could not influence the probe and temper the evidences. Because he always boast up that his father was great police officer and that’s why I have able to retain bungalow at 14-B, Mother Teresa Crescent, New Delhi-110011 along with ministers. He also protects corrupt DRDO officials and supports them in lodging false FIR against the whistle blowers.
As Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO HQ, New Delhi using his position to harass number of DRDO scientists like
Dr Gausal Azam Kahn, Sc ‘D’, DIPAS on the demand of his sister Dr Sahshi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS He cooked false charge sheet against him who was joined DRDO direct Scientist D in DRDO NRI scheme,
Sh N P Gupta, Sc ‘C’, DMSRDE a computer science background scientist thrown to Life Science Lab, DRL, Tezpur just because to protect corrupt Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE,
Sh D Muthuraja, Scientist E was shunted to ACME Nashik without work as he did complaint against the wrong deeds of Sh Guruprasad, Director, R&D Eng. of making Rath in R&D premises without any fear and wasted precious poor tax payers money and DRDO manpower (two parliamentarian already raised question in zero hour on 18th December 2014)
As per sources you might be received answer from Sh Guru Parsad , Director, R&D Eng., DRDO, Pune the bullock story “making of Rath was not just devotional activity but also interesting technical task. Apart from saving bullock burden”
On last August DRDO award ceremony our Prime Minister mentioned to DRDO scientist please do something to reduce weight of our soldiers uniform like light weight shoes etc. That time our PM not aware of DRDO’s kind hearted scientists who already spent 5 corers Rs to saving bullock burden.
Dr A K Singh gave his all administrative supports to harass above scientists, Sir there are 100 of cases available their Dr A K Singh supporting Lab directors in ACR/APAR cases, promotions cases specially in minorities etc, Sir, It is requested please ask the total amount spend by DRDO in various court cases like CATs/District Courts/High courts and Supreme Court in Dr A K Singh tenure it is self explanatory of his administrative capability and degrading HR quality and image of DRDO.
To 30th September 2014Sh A. M. Manichan,Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,Ministry of Defence,Department of Defence,Sena Bhavan, New Delhi
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO held guilty for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014. Subsequently Sh.G MALAKONDIAHfiled an appealin SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 25th September 2014 and got stay on Madras High Court order of 24th September 2014. In Supreme Court there are four advocates were present for appellantSh.G MALAKONDIAH
For Appellant(s)Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, AG Mr. R. Bala, Adv. Mr. R.K. Verma, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
Provide the Ministry of Defence rule position for providing advocates to government servant.
Number of advocates
Limit of fees
The criteria for providing advocates
In case of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH provide the total expenditure done by Ministry of Defence.
Provide the advocate fee given to each one for Sh.G MALAKONDIAH case.
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)
WITH C.A. D 31978/2014
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)
Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT
For Appellant(s)Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, AG Mr. R. Bala, Adv. Mr. R.K. Verma, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Balaji,Adv. Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2014.09.29
12:12:10 IST
Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.
Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1. He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.
(Rajni Mukhi) (H.S. Parasher)
Sr. P.A. Court Master
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
