Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the grievance of Yogi M. P. Singh, with particular reference to corruption in India. Bhartiya Janta Party is the most corrupt political party in India. It is headed by our prime minister Mr Narendra Modi Das Modi. During the regime of our prime minister, there is rampant increase in the corruption.

1. The Financial Core of the Dispute is due to Corruption in India

The primary issue is a contractual breach by Facebook India. The complainant deposited ₹2,083.16 for advertisements, but after the company billed only ₹1,294.71 and cancelled the services, they failed to refund the remaining ₹788.45.

2. Institutional “Apathy” and Evasion

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the Registrar of Companies (ROC) took over one year to process the complaint. They then provided a “cryptic” and “arbitrary” dismissal. They chose not to exercise their regulatory authority to compel a refund. Instead, they directed the citizen to a formal court of law. This process is financially unfeasible for such a small amount.

3. The “Petty Offense” Trap (Corruption in India)

The case highlights a dangerous systemic trend where low-value financial crimes are ignored by the state. This creates a “safe zone” for large corporations to engage in mass-scale petty fraud. They are aware that the government considers the amounts too small to warrant intervention. Additionally, the victims find the legal system too expensive to access.

4. Erosion of the Rule of Law

The complainant argues that the government’s refusal to act represents a shift from a healthy democracy to a “jungle rule.” When public officials simply watch corporate cheating without taking action, it erodes public trust. Citizens lose faith in the state’s ability to protect them from fraudulent business practices.

5. Failure of Grievance Redressal Mechanisms because of Corruption in India

The appeal was closed in June 2025. This demonstrates that platforms like CPGRAMS can become “dead ends.” This happens if the responding officers prioritize closing files over resolving the underlying injustice. The shift of the case between different ROCs (Telangana, Delhi, Punjab) without a resolution suggests bureaucratic inefficiency.

This blog post explores the systemic hurdles citizens face when seeking justice for small-scale financial fraud. These issues are often deeply linked to the persistent problem of India corruption. It specifically examines the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. Facebook India and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

---

Corruption in India: How “Petty” Corruption Erodes the Rule of Law

In the world’s largest democracy, a question of gravity arises. Does the value of justice depend on the size of the claim? For Yogi M. P. Singh, a citizen from Mirzapur, the answer from the Indian government has been a resounding—and disheartening—yes. His struggle to recover a “petty” sum of ₹788.45 from tech giant Facebook India has exposed a deeper systemic rot related to corruption in India. Public authorities seem to retreat from their duties. This leaves citizens in a vacuum of accountability.

The Core Dispute: Corporate Retainment of Funds

The grievance began with a straightforward consumer dispute. Mr. Singh utilized the Facebook advertising platform, prepaying a total of ₹2,083.16. After billing ₹1,294.71, the company canceled the remaining advertisements. Logic and fair trade practices dictate that the remaining balance—₹788.45—should be refunded to the user.

However, the refund never came. Ultimately, when corporate entities exploit loopholes, they ignore accountability. This exploitation can be seen as a stark example of corruption within India’s business sector. When a global corporation withholds even a small amount from thousands of individuals, it is no longer a “petty” matter. It becomes a significant revenue stream built on exploiting the “gullible public.”

The Bureaucratic “Runaway”: CPGRAMS and the ROC

Seeking redress, Mr. Singh approached the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS). The complaint was routed to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

After more than a year of waiting and multiple reminders, the official response was a classic display of bureaucratic evasion:

“The Complainant may approach Competent Court of Law/ Hon’ble Tribunal for necessary action… your complaint is treated as closed.”

This response ignores the fundamental purpose of grievance cells. The government shuts justice out by directing a citizen to a “Competent Court.” This happens for a sum of less than ₹1,000. The cost of filing a legal suit would far exceed the amount in question. Hiring a lawyer and attending hearings add to the cost. The authorities are well aware of the consequences of corruption in India and its impact on ordinary citizens.

The “Jungle Rule” vs. The Rule of Law

The complainant’s frustration is palpable, comparing the retreat of government staff to “thieves running away from an aware public.” He argues that when the state provides a license to a company to operate, it takes on some responsibility. This pertains to the company’s conduct, and its responsibility exists in the context of corruption in India.

• Arbitrary Reporting: The ROC’s reports have been labeled as “inconsistent” and “cryptic.”
• The Silence of Leadership: The appeal highlights the irony of a government that prides itself on honesty. At the same time, its departments remain “mute spectators” to corporate cheating and the issue of corruption in India.
• Systemic Failure: Public authorities refuse to exercise their regulatory power over registered entities like Facebook India. As a result, the Rule of Law is replaced by what the complainant calls “Jungle Rule.

Why Small Claims Matter

The dismissal of “petty” offenses is perhaps the most dangerous form of corruption. It creates a “low-stakes” environment for large corporations to ignore consumer rights without fear of regulatory intervention. In India, this culture of corruption affects small claims, sending a message that “cheating small and cheating many” has no repercussions. If the ROC refuses to act on a ₹800 fraud, it sends a signal to every fraudulent company. They learn that they can operate with impunity as long as they “cheat small” and “cheat many.”

Conclusion: A Call for Cogent Action

The closure of Appeal DCOYA/E/A/25/0000113 marks a grim milestone. It suggests that for the average Indian citizen, the path to justice is blocked by a wall of apathy. Justice should not be a luxury reserved for those with claims large enough to interest a tribunal. Clearly, tackling corruption in India is essential to making justice accessible for all.

To restore faith in the democracy, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs must take action. They should move beyond “closing” files. It is important to hold registered companies accountable for every rupee they unlawfully retain. This accountability is crucial, particularly in the ongoing battle against corruption in India.

To help you pursue this case or escalate it further, here are the structured contact details for the public authorities and regulatory bodies involved.

1. Key Official Contact Information

The officer mentioned in your appeal, Sh. M.K. Sahu, and his department can be reached through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) headquarters.

Officer Name	Role / Department	Contact Number	Email Address
Sh. M.K. Sahu	Under Secretary (MCA)	011-23389602	manoj.sahu@gov.in
Ms. Deepti Gaur Mukerjee	Secretary (MCA)	011-23382324	secy.mca@nic.in
Ms. Kamini Chauhan Ratan	AS & FA	011-23382418	kamini.ias@gov.in
Sh. Balamurugan D.	Joint Secretary	011-23389088	jsbd-mca@gov.in

---

2. Regional Offices (Registrars of Companies)

Since your grievance was handled by various offices (Delhi, Punjab, and Telangana), you may need to send a formal legal notice or a follow-up letter to these specific jurisdictions:

• ROC Delhi & Haryana (Head Office for Facebook India):
  • Address: 4th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019
  • Phone: 011-26235707 / 08
  • Email: roc.delhi@mca.gov.in
• ROC Punjab & Chandigarh:
  • Address: Corporate Bhawan, Plot No. 4B, Sector 27B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160019
  • Phone: 0172-2639415
  • Email: roc.chandigarh@mca.gov.in
• ROC Telangana (Last Disposing Office):
  • Address: 2nd Floor, Corporate Bhawan, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad – 500068
  • Phone: 040-29805427
  • Email: roc.hyderabad@mca.gov.in

---

3. Escalation Portals & Web Links (Corruption in India)

If you wish to challenge the “Closed” status of your appeal, use the following official digital channels:

• CPGRAMS (Appeal/Feedback):pgportal.gov.in
  • Note: Use your Registration Number DCOYA/E/2024/0007285 to file a feedback/appeal within 30 days of closure.
• MCA Investor Complaint Form: MCA21 Services
• National Consumer Helpline (NCH):consumerhelpline.gov.in
  • Facebook India provided a service (advertisement). They failed to refund the balance, which constitutes a “Deficiency in Service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. You can call 1915 to register a consumer grievance which is often more effective than the ROC for refund matters.

4. Next Step

The ROC has directed you to a “Competent Court.” You might consider filing a case in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Mirzapur. For claims under ₹5 Lakhs, there is no court fee. You can file the complaint online via the e-Daakhil portal. It is not necessary to hire a lawyer for such a small amount.

Would you like me to draft a formal complaint for the e-Daakhil (Consumer Court) portal specifically for this ₹788 refund? Whether anyone will control Corruption in India.