{"id":230473,"date":"2008-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-11T07:39:43","modified_gmt":"2016-07-11T02:09:43","slug":"mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>           Central Information Commission\n                                                          CIC\/OK\/A\/2008\/789\/AD\n\n                                                           Dated December 8, 2008\n\nName of the Appellant                  :      Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan\n                                              TV Correspondent\n                                              Room No.2\n                                              DD News, CPC\n                                              Khelgaon\n                                              New Delhi 110 049\n\n\nName of Public Authority               :      The CPIO\n                                              DG : Doordarshan\n                                              New Delhi\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.   The RTI application was filed on 11.10.07.                 The Appellant requested<br \/>\n     for information against 5 points             including points related to action<br \/>\n     taken by the Directorate against                 DTC, DDK, Patna and on CIC&#8217;s<br \/>\n     viewpoint      in its Order dated 16.8.07 that the Appellant has been<br \/>\n     discriminated against in his Office. The ACPIO, Prasar Bharati,<br \/>\n     Doordarshan Kendra, Patna replied on 19.11.07 on behalf of CPIO<br \/>\n     stating that no action has been taken based on what CIC had held<br \/>\n     about the Appellant facing              discrimination in his office. The CPIO<br \/>\n     provided point-wise information against the remaining points in the<br \/>\n     RTI application.        The CPIO, Doordarshan, Lucknow also replied on<br \/>\n     19.11.07 providing some information.               Not satisfied with the replies,<br \/>\n     the Appellant filed his first appeal on 19.12.07.               The First Appellate<br \/>\n     Authority      ,    Directorate       General,    Prasar    Bharati   (Broadcasting<br \/>\n     Corporation of India) Doordarshan, replied on 14.1.08                 and the First<br \/>\n     Appellate Authority, Directorate General: Doordarshan replied on<br \/>\n     13.2.08.    Not satisfied with the replies of the two First Appellate<br \/>\n     Authorities,       the Appellant filed his second appeal before the CIC on<br \/>\n     14.5.08 and reiterated his request for the information.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2.     The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner,<br \/>\n       scheduled the hearing for December 8, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     Ms.Sunita Bharal, Dy. Director and Mr.M.K.Singh, Section Officer<br \/>\n       represented the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     The Appellant,   Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan was present in person during<br \/>\n       the hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>     5. The Appellant submitted that he is confused by the contradictory<br \/>\n       pieces of information being provided to him by the Officers in Prasar<br \/>\n       Bharati, Directorate General: Doordarshan.    In the first instance, Ms.<br \/>\n       Rita Kumar, Appellate Authority &amp; DDG (Admin) DG: Doordarshan<br \/>\n       wrote in her Order dated 14.1.08 that the matter regarding Mr. S.K.<br \/>\n       Grover, the then Director, DDK , Patna, sharing a dias with political<br \/>\n       leaders is being referred to the zonal DDG for inquiry and submitting a<br \/>\n       report.    Mr. R. Venkateshwarulu the        Appellate Authority, DG:<br \/>\n       Doordarshan, however, wrote in his Order dated 13.2.08 that the<br \/>\n       matter of Mr. Grover sharing a dias with political leaders has been<br \/>\n       verified and that Mr. Grover was accompanying the Minister as part of<br \/>\n       the protocol and that he was present in the press conference by MSIB<br \/>\n       on 15.2.04 during the time when the Election Commission&#8217;s Code of<br \/>\n       Conduct was not in force. The Appellant expressed his suspicion that<br \/>\n       all attempts are being made to protect Mr. Grover and that if Mr.<br \/>\n       Grover did join the Minister as a part of the protocol then he should<br \/>\n       be provided with a copy of the Order saying so.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      The Appellant also pointed out that in the Order dated 14.1.08 from<br \/>\n       Rita Kumar , AA and DDG(Admn), DG: Dordarshan it is stated that<br \/>\n       Mr. Grover, Director, DDK, Lcknow, was only appointed as DDG (In<br \/>\n       charge) of DDK, Lucknow due to administrative reasons and that<br \/>\n      designation of regular DDG in respect of Mr. Grover is not permissible<br \/>\n     unless he is promoted as regular DDG.               The fact that Mr. Grover is<br \/>\n     only In-Charge has also been corroborated by                  in the Order dated<br \/>\n     19.11.07 from Mr. Kripa Shankar Yadav, CPIO. The Appellant stated<br \/>\n     that he himself had furnished a copy of a communication in which Mr.<br \/>\n     Grover used the designation DDG.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The Appellant further submitted that inadvertently a typographical<br \/>\n     error was made when he wrote &#8221; Pranab Shati&#8217; instead of &#8220;Pranab<br \/>\n     Shahi&#8217; when he was enquiring whether Mr. Grover stayed in a house<br \/>\n     of a private Producer Mr. Shati while he was posted in Patne. The<br \/>\n     contention of the Appellant is that the CPIO has taken advantage of<br \/>\n     the typographical error when he replied that no person with the name<br \/>\n     Mr. Shati lives in Patna, despite the Appellant informing him that it is a<br \/>\n     typographical error.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The Respondents also submitted a rejoinder giving brief details. With<br \/>\n     regard to use of Designation DDG by Mr. Grover, who was only In-<br \/>\n     Chage,      the   Respondents       stated    the    &#8216;Communication        using<br \/>\n     Designation as DDG by Shri. S.K. Grover in one communication<br \/>\n     preferred to the Co-ordination Cell which does not seem to<br \/>\n     have any impact on the functioning on In Charge DDG as both<br \/>\n     enjoy the same powers of DDG.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>9.   The Respondents further submitted that payments of telephone bills<br \/>\n     has been made to the Appellant and that interest payments are not<br \/>\n     permissible under the Rules and also there is no court directions on<br \/>\n     the subject.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   After studying the case the Commission is of the opinion that the<br \/>\n     Appellant    is   justified   in   getting   confused    by    the   contradictory<br \/>\n     information provided by the two Appellate Authorities and urges the<br \/>\n       Appellate    Authorities   to   improve   coordination   between   different<br \/>\n      Sections of the Directorate while replying to RTI applications.         The<br \/>\n      Commission holds that if as per Ms. Rita Kumar&#8217;s version, there is an<br \/>\n      inquiry report, a copy of the report should be provided to the Appellant<br \/>\n      by the CPIO. If, on the other hand, Mr. Grover was, indeed, a part of<br \/>\n      the protocol then a certified copy of the Protocol Order, without which<br \/>\n      Mr. Grover cannot join the Minister&#8217;s entourage, to be provided to the<br \/>\n      Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   With regard to the issue of telephone bills, the CPIO to provide<br \/>\n      documents to support their statement        for not giving the interest on<br \/>\n      the reimbursement for telephone bills. The          Appellant also to be<br \/>\n      provided with the answer to the first part of his question point (d)<br \/>\n      about the expenditure incurred on the trip to Delhi on Mr. Grover,<br \/>\n      when he appeared before the CIC .         Also now that the Appellant has<br \/>\n      once again clarified that &#8216;Shati&#8217; should be read as &#8221;Shahi&#8217;, the CPIO is<br \/>\n      directed to provide information sought against point 5 of the RTI<br \/>\n      application.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   All the information should be provided within 1 month of receipt of this<br \/>\n      Order.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   The appeal is disposed off.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                              (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                      Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.G.Nair)<br \/>\nDesignated Officer<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan<br \/>\n      TV Correspondent<br \/>\n      Room No.2<br \/>\n      DD News, CPC<br \/>\n      Khelgaon<br \/>\n      New Delhi 110 049<\/p>\n<p>2.    The CPIO<br \/>\n      DG : Doordarshan<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>3.    The Appellate Authority &#8211; RTI<br \/>\n      Deputy Director General (Admn)<br \/>\n      Doordarshan<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>4.    The Appellate Authority &#8211; RTI<br \/>\n      Deputy Director General (Programme)<br \/>\n      Doordarshan<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>5.    Officer incharge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>6.    Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008 Central Information Commission CIC\/OK\/A\/2008\/789\/AD Dated December 8, 2008 Name of the Appellant : Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan TV Correspondent Room No.2 DD News, CPC Khelgaon New Delhi 110 049 Name of Public Authority : The CPIO DG : Doordarshan New Delhi Background [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-11T02:09:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-11T02:09:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1007,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-11T02:09:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-11T02:09:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-11T02:09:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008"},"wordCount":1007,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008","name":"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-11T02:09:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sudhanshu-ranjan-vs-dg-doordarshan-new-delhi-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan vs Dg : Doordarshan, New Delhi on 8 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}