Letter to DCP EOW for misconduct n not conducting RTI appeal hearing
With due respect to DCP Goel and with intention to learn from him.
With due respect to DCP Goel and with intention to learn from him.
With due respect to DCP Goel and with intention to learn from him.
https://kamlakarshenoy.com/updates/with-due-respect-to-dcp-goel-and-with-inten-051226/
Dcp Goel refused to conduct RTI APPEAL HEARING under video recording as it would expose the illegal acts of ACP PIO
Respected Sir / Madam,
To,
The First Appellate Authority
DCP Shri Goel
Mumbai Police
CC JT CP ( Senior officer to DCP EOW is duty bound to take action against DCP for violating binding precedent, manhandling senior citizen and not conducting RTI APPEAL)
CP
DGP
CMO
Subject: Conduct During RTI Appeal Hearing, Prevention from Attending Hearing, Denial of Hearing.
Respected Sir,
With due respect to your office and with a genuine intention to learn from you, I state as under:
I am awaiting your order in the RTI Appeal proceedings, without conducting the hearing after fixing the date and time of hearing as 12.5.26 at 11 a.m, as the same shall become an important document in my continuing fight against corruption and maladministration as well as public servant misusing and abusing his position.
At the outset, my allegations are institutional and legal in nature and not personal. It appears that the provisions, obligations, and spirit of the RTI Act are being ignored in the conduct of proceedings before your office. The events that transpired on the date of hearing disclose serious procedural irregularities and violations of statutory duties.
That I was officially called for RTI Appeal hearing before your office through email communication giving only approximately 23 hours’ notice, without requisite notice of minimum 7 days, with only a link provided and without mentioning:
(i) the complete address of the office; and
(ii) the name of the concerned DCP conducting the hearing.
That upon attending the office for the scheduled hearing, I was prevented from entering the office/cabin of the First Appellate Authority by an unidentified person who:
(i) was not in uniform;
(ii) had no name plate;
(iii) displayed no authority letter or identity card; and
(iv) nevertheless proceeded to speak on RTI matters without any apparent knowledge of the RTI Act or any legal authority whatsoever.
The DCP shall give explanation for such misuse of power and for allowing unauthorised persons without uniform and badges disclosing their name and designation to interfere in quasi-judicial proceedings.
That at the very time when I was being denied entry despite the scheduled hearing, and when I entered your cabin requesting you to conduct the RTI Appeal hearing, you allegedly directed two unidentified persons to physically hold and remove me from the office/cabin without:
(i) assigning any reasons as to why the RTI Appeal hearing was not being conducted despite the Appellant remaining present;
(ii) disclosing any provision of law under which the Appellant could be forcibly removed from quasi-judicial proceedings; or
(iii) informing the Appellant of any offence allegedly committed warranting such action.
It further appears that directions were also issued to subordinate police personnel regarding arrest/action against the Appellant, which was immediately questioned and challenged by the Appellant by demanding disclosure of the legal provisions authorising such action.
The said unidentified persons thereafter allegedly refrained from taking further coercive action after the Appellant informed your office that a complaint had already been filed against DCP at Azad Maidan Police Station concerning conduct during an earlier RTI Appeal hearing, and that the Appellant was fully aware of his legal rights and remedies.
That the unidentified persons prevented the Appellant from attending the quasi-judicial proceedings and physically restrained, touched, and tightly held the Appellant, who is a senior citizen aged about 68 years. The said acts are recorded on video.
That such acts prima facie constitute wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 341 IPC and are supported by contemporaneous video evidence.
That despite fixing the RTI Appeal for hearing and despite the Appellant remaining present, the hearing itself was allegedly refused/avoided, raising serious questions as to:
(i) under which provision of the RTI Act;
(ii) under which provision of CrPC; or
(iii) under which Article of the Constitution,
the Appellant could be prevented from participating in the proceedings and yet an order could still be passed.
That the RTI Appeal hearing was effectively denied and obstructed because the Appellant insisted upon video recording of the proceedings for transparency, accountability, and accurate preservation of events, whereas your office allegedly insisted that the Appellant discontinue the recording through unidentified persons who:
(i) were not in uniform;
(ii) were not wearing any badge, name plate, or identification disclosing their name and designation;
(iii) disclosed no written authority to interfere in quasi-judicial proceedings; and
(iv) nevertheless attempted to prevent recording and participation in the hearing; and
(v) the DCP did not utter a single word before the video recording explaining why the RTI hearing was being cancelled or stating that video recording was allegedly illegal.
That the insistence upon stopping video recording through unidentified persons without authority raises serious apprehension regarding transparency, fairness, and legality in the conduct of the RTI Appeal proceedings, particularly when the Appellant was thereafter prevented from effectively participating in the hearing.
Further, there were no PIO, APIO, or clerk present in the office despite the matter being predetermined for RTI Appeal hearing.
That the entire incident, including the conduct of unauthorised persons not in uniform and not wearing batches and physical restraint of the Appellant, is supported by contemporaneous video evidence and may independently establish obstruction of quasi-judicial proceedings and denial of fair hearing.
Kindly disclose the specific provision of law under which the First Appellate Authority can pass an order in RTI Appeal proceedings after having fixed a hearing, while simultaneously refusing to conduct the hearing despite the physical presence of the Appellant.
(i) The RTI Act contemplates fair consideration of the Appeal and compliance with principles of natural justice.
(ii) Once a hearing is fixed and the Appellant remains present, refusal to hear the Appellant while still proceeding to pass an order raises serious issues regarding legality, procedural fairness, and bias.
(iii) Kindly therefore specify the exact statutory provision, rule, circular, notification, or judicial precedent permitting disposal of the RTI Appeal without conducting the scheduled hearing.
(iv) Kindly further clarify whether denial of hearing despite appearance of the Appellant would amount to violation of principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem.
(v) Further, the DCP willfully did not implement and direct the PIO to provide compliance of Sections 7(8)(i) and 19(5) of the RTI Act, which would have exposed the illegal activities of the PIO.
That it is necessary for your office to disclose the legal authority under which:
(i) unauthorized persons without uniform and badges disclosing name and designation were instructed to remove the Appellant from the office/cabin;
(ii) entry into a public office was restricted through display of a board stating “NO ADMISSION WITHOUT PERMISSION”; and
(iii) citizens attending official hearings were denied access to quasi-judicial proceedings.
Kindly clarify the section and provision of law, if any, permitting prevention of citizens from entering a public office conducting quasi-judicial proceedings without statutory backing.
That the video recording of the incident may constitute material evidence demonstrating obstruction of a citizen from accessing a public office and attending scheduled RTI proceedings.
Further, it is pertinent to note that no board regarding public meeting hours or appointment procedure was displayed outside your cabin/office despite Government Resolution dated 13.01.2025 requiring transparency and accessibility in public dealings.
Your eventual order in the RTI Appeal shall itself become an important piece of evidence and may demonstrate whether:
(i) principles of natural justice were followed;
(ii) hearing was genuinely conducted;
(iii) submissions of the Appellant were considered; and
(iv) statutory obligations under the RTI Act were complied with.
I respectfully state that if my understanding of the RTI Act, IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, or constitutional principles is incorrect, I shall readily beg pardon and would genuinely welcome legal correction and education from your office.
However, I possess documents and notings signed which, in my respectful opinion, may disclose conduct promoting illegal activities and actions against larger public interest, potentially affecting the financial stability of Mumbai and Maharashtra.
I sincerely pray that you prove my understanding incorrect through legal reasoning and statutory provisions, as that would provide me an opportunity to learn from an experienced IPS officer serving in Mumbai Police.
It further appears that the hearing was avoided due to apprehension that the proceedings may expose:
(i) fabrication of incorrect documents; and
(ii) actions of subordinate officers contrary to public interest,
while higher officers remained silent spectators.
I also respectfully state that public servants are servants of the public and are expected to maintain dignity, fairness, and proper conduct while dealing with citizens, especially senior citizens attending officially scheduled hearings.
Kindly also specify the legal provision under which subordinate officers physically touched, restrained, and removed the Appellant from the office premises.
The video evidence available may independently constitute sufficient material for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings.
In conclusion, the overall circumstances create an impression that there is an urgent need for proper training and sensitization regarding:
(i) the RTI Act;
(ii) the Indian Penal Code;
(iii) the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(iv) the Indian Evidence Act; and
(v) Conduct Rules applicable to public servants.
The conduct complained of herein also appears contrary to the standards of behaviour expected from police officers and public servants under applicable Service Conduct Rules and the Maharashtra Police framework, including:
(i) Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, which requires every member of the service to:
(a) maintain absolute integrity;
(b) maintain devotion to duty; and
(c) do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.
(ii) Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, requiring every Government servant to maintain:
(a) absolute integrity;
(b) devotion to duty; and
(c) conduct befitting a Government servant while dealing with members of the public.
(iii) The Maharashtra Police Act and standing instructions governing police discipline, public conduct, accountability, and behaviour towards citizens, which require police officers to act fairly, responsibly, courteously, and within authority of law.
(iv) The obligation of police officers and quasi-judicial authorities to maintain transparency, fairness, restraint, and dignity while dealing with citizens, particularly senior citizens attending officially scheduled proceedings.
(v) The conduct of permitting unidentified persons without uniform, name plates, badges, or disclosed authority to physically interfere in quasi-judicial proceedings and restrain a citizen may therefore amount to misconduct, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, and conduct unbecoming of a public servant.
In view of the above, kindly clarify:
(i) whether the actions complained of are consistent with Rule 3 of the applicable Conduct Rules;
(ii) whether unidentified persons without uniform or disclosed authority can legally interfere in quasi-judicial proceedings; and
(iii) whether public servants are permitted to physically restrain and remove senior citizens from scheduled RTI Appeal hearings without assigning reasons in writing or citing statutory authority.
If my submissions are legally incorrect, I shall consider it a privilege to be corrected and educated by such distinguished officers serving in the elite police force of Mumbai.
Date: 12.05.2026
Sd/-
Kamlakar Shenoy
Gaurang R. Vora
Chetan Trivedi
Shailesh Prabhu
--
Kamlakar R. Shenoy
M. 99207 75798
Twitter / FB - @Kamlakar_Shenoy
Email - shenoykr2001@yahoo.co.in
Note: With Due Respect & Humility. If my submissions is incorrect, please educate me by furnishing relevant documents.
"The world suffers not because of bad persons but because of silence of good persons"