But this didnt come true. But at around 18:30 hrs i.e. 3 hours later i

received a call from the mobile number 9841598415 and mr.solomon,

sr.exec from nodal office, annasalai (not kilpauk which is displayed in

aircel website and TRAI websites) where the nodal officer ms. farahat

is sitting instead of ms.devavaniumashankar displayed in aircel website

and TRAI websites who is no more the nodal officer for aircel chennai

which has not been brought to the notice of the public through wide

publication as per TRAI rules and or to TRAI itself till date. He

informed me that he had called the number 9551385422 and some other

preson is taking the call instead of mr.ramesh and he wanted to speak

to him. to this I infomred him by call back that since mr.ramesh has

left the mobile at his house due to disconnection and it might be his

son who has responded him. but mr.solomon upon who a complaint has

already pending for misrepresenting as nodal officer and then

retracting from the same later and giving non committal commitment for

call back from nodal office which has not happed tille date was not

accepting the reply as genuine. I also asked him whether the line

release is temporary as done earlier of a permanent one for which

mr.solomon said that it is a permanent one and the line will not be

disconnected again. Upon this statement I asked him about the

mysteriously missing documents for which he stated that he is having

those documents with him and he can send a scanned copy of it to my

email which is Contradictio in adjecto to the earlier statements of

aircel. And also questioned my authority to pursue the case instead of

mr.ramesh. I informed him that since even the calls to aircel customer

care was barred by aircel I had to make a call from some other aircel

number and based on the empirical evidence and empirical data collected

during the course of this case the matter is pursued in the interest of

public and no more a case of mr.ramesh only. AS again mr.solomon asked

for power of attorney from mr.ramesh, I would like to inform mr.solom

that this case has been forwarded to TRAI in the interest of public

taking suo motu cognizance of the empirical evidences and empirical

data collected during the course of this case and also due to the

crimen injuria cause personally to me by aircel executive during the

course of this case.

It is also reitterated that mr. solomon, sr.exec of aircel nodal office

has spoken coram non judice and has faiuled to remember the principle

of delegata potestas non potest delegari where he is not authorized to

speak.

It is also brought to the notice of all concerned that mr.solomon

wanted to meet me and mr.ramesh personally in his office to which he

refused send a written request when asked for, stating that since the

case is pending before the TRAI and COP he cannot give anything in

writing showed the mens rea of aircel to hush up the case as a mere cap

issue and not a point to point systematic failure of implementation of

TRAI rules and regulation.

As of now since the case is with the TRAI it is hereby informed to mr.

solomon and all concerned that there would not be a personal meeting as

requested by mr.solomon unless and until the same is made in writing

through officialy deligatted channels and in the presence of TRAI

officials only.

This is for information and further necessary action of all concerned.

Note: To the COP: There is no information on how the documents went

missing and came back after complaint to your office and TRAI. This is

still a mysterious mystery.

Regards,

Lawrence Sathiyaraj J