{"id":259532,"date":"2008-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-01T01:12:34","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T19:42:34","slug":"shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008<\/div>\n
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                          Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00394 dated 16.4.2007\n                            Right to Information Act<\/a> 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant       -          Shri P. Thavasiraj. Tamilnadu\nRespondent          -      Dep't of Atomic Energy, Mumbai\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
     By an application of 8.12.06 Shri Thavasiraj of Sattankulam Talluk,
\nTuticorin District, Tamilnadu applied to the CPIO \/ Director (I&M), Dep’t. of
\nAtomic Energy seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “1.   Kindly furnish copy of the complaints related to allegations of
\n               irregularities in purchase of machines for the OSCOM Unit of
\n               IREL.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2.    Kindly furnish copy of the enquiry report made by DAE on
\n               the above complaints.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.    Kindly furnish copy of the complaints alleged that Mr. K.P.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Sreenivasan Plant In charge of Indian Rare Earths Limited,
\n               Manavalakurichi indulged in favoritism and caused loss to
\n               the Manavalakurichi Plant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4.    Kindly furnish the detailed report furnished by IREL in this
\n               connection in respect of this allegation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         5.    Kindly furnish the copy of the relevant documents which
\n               were called for from IREL in respect of CBI request.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     To this he received a response from Ms. Latika Goel, Dy. Secretary
\n(I&M)\/PIO DAE dated 17.1.07, who had received the application on 19.12.06,
\nanswering all questions except question No. 5, to which the reply was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “With regard to point (5) of your letter, the documents called for
\n         from IREL in connection with the CBI request contains commercial
\n         details of purchases made by the Company and disclosure of the
\n         same is likely to harm the business interests of the company.
\n         Therefore, by virtue of exemption granted under sec. 8(1) (d) of the
\n         Right to Information Act<\/a>, 2005 the copies of the documents sought
\n         cannot be provided.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
       Appellant then moved his first appeal before Addl. Secretary, DAE on
\n27.1.07 asking specifically for the following:\n<\/p>\n
       “I request copy of relevant documents which were called for from
\n       IREL in respect of CBI request. This is not come under the purview
\n       of Sec. 8(1) (d) as this is not a commercial confidence or trade
\n       secret. Hence the PIO findings are not correct.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Shri V. P. Raja, Addl. Secy. (I&M) in his decision of 1.3.07 decided as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “After carefully studying through the appeal petition, the provisions
\n       of the Right to Information Act<\/a> and the documents in question, I
\n       have come to the conclusion that the PIO had rightly denied the
\n       “documents” to the Appellant as no larger public interest would be
\n       served by providing the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The PIO had rightly denied copies of the documents sought by the
\n       appellant as the provisions contained in sec., 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act<\/a>
\n       gets attracted in this particular case. The revelation of the
\n       information sought is likely to have an adverse effect on the
\n       efficient operation and management of Indian Rare Earths Limited
\n       which has to function as a commercial organization in a competitive
\n       environment and where decisions have to be taken in the best
\n       business interests of the company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Hence the appeal is rejected and the decision of the PIO given in
\n       her letter No. 7\/3(21)\/2005-PSU\/439 dated 17.1.07 is confirmed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In his prayer before us in second appeal Shri P. Thavasiraj has specifically
\ncited the information sought at Para 5 of his application from the CPIO. His
\nprayer before us is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “The appeal may be allowed and the PIO may kindly be directed to
\n       furnish the information to the appeal petitioner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The appeal was heard on 1.9.08 by video conferencing. Although
\ninformed of the date of hearing and arrangements having been made at NIC
\nStudio, Tuticorin, Appellant Shri Thavasiraj has opted not to be present.
\nThe following are present at NIC Studio Mumbai:\n<\/p>\n
       Respondents
\n            Ms. Revati, Joint Secy. (I&M) DAE<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span>
\n               Ms. Latika Goel, PIO.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ms. Revati, Jt. Secretary (I&M) DAE submitted that the Decision in this
\ncase was taken because the information obtained from IREL was with regard to
\npurchase orders, cost estimates, quotations and Board’s deliberations, all of
\nwhich were considered information exempted from disclosure u\/s 8(1) (d) since
\nall of these pertain to the competitive position of third party in question i.e. IREL,
\nas also commercial confidence and trade secrets. This was the reason why this
\ninformation was denied also in another application of 22.9.06, received from
\nappellant Shri Thavasiraj regarding which an appeal has already been heard
\nbefore this Commission in File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00467 on 6.8.08 through
\nvideoconference, a decision on which has been reserved. In that case one Shri
\nAnand Padhmanabhan has appeared on behalf of appellant Shri P. Thivasiraj
\nwho has submitted written arguments of appellant in this matter dated 13.8.08.
\nThe decision in both these cases will, therefore, be identical.\n<\/p>\n
                                DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
     The written statement on behalf of the appellant has been received through
\nthe letter of Shri P. Thavasiraj of 13.8.08. In this he has submitted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “The PIO by its letter dated 16.1.2007 declined to give information
\n       by invoking section 8<\/a> (1) (d) of the RTI Act<\/a>, 2005 stated that the
\n       documents called for from IREL by CBI contains commercial details
\n       of purchased made by the company and disclosure of the same is
\n       likely to harm business interest of the company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       First appellate authority confirmed the above order and rejected the
\n       appeal filed by the appellant herein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The issue, therefore, before this Hon’ble Commission is whether
\n       the first appellate authority and the PIO were justified in invoking
\n       section 8(1)<\/a> (d) of the RTI Act<\/a> to refuse information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Admittedly in the present case there was an investigation by the
\n       CBI. Again admittedly CBI found irregularities in purchase of
\n       Machineries of OSCOM Project; however, the permission sought by<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span>
\n        CBI for registering a regular case against the officers involved was
\n       declined by the Govt.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     He has gone on to quote Sec. 8(1) sub-sections (d) and (j) and Sec 11 of
\nthe R.T.I. Act<\/a> and has concluded that it is clear that the exemption clause cannot
\noverride the larger public interest. Besides, he states that the order does not
\ndisclose in what way the commercial interest of IREL would be compromised by
\nthe information sought. In this case he has cited the decision of the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court of India in P.U.C.L. Vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399. He
\nhas gone on to quote extensively from the decision of the Supreme Court of India
\nin Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India vs.
\nCricket Association & ors<\/a>. (1995) 2 SCC 161. However, the quotation that he
\nhas given is actually the quotation from the decision of Ravinder Bhat J. in
\nBhagat Singh vs. Central Information Commission<\/a> in W.P. 3114\/2007 He has
\nquoted as follows, which is Para 14 of this Decision:\n<\/p>\n
        “A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the
\n       Act, should receive a liberal interpretation.         The contextual
\n       background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions,
\n       outlined in Section 8<\/a>, relieving the authorities from the obligation to
\n       provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the
\n       rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption has to be
\n       construed in their terms; (See Nathi Devi v Radha Devi Gupta 2005
\n       (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC
\n       231 v. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy<\/a> 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a
\n       different approach would result in narrowing the rights and
\n       approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights
\n       under the Act, which his unwarranted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In the above case submitted by appellant, although we have treated as
\nthe definitive the judgment cited for application of sec. 8(1) (h) for exemption in
\nparticular and exemption u\/s 8(1) in general, it would not apply in the present
\ncase, since this is to be examined in the light of the issue of compromise of
\ncommercial interest and invasion of privacy. Hence, as discussed in our decision
\nin File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00467, we find that commercial confidence
\nnotwithstanding, the information sought in this case falls within the definition of
\nprivate information and is exempt from disclosure u\/s 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
       Reserved in the hearing, the decision is announced in open chambers on
\nthis 2nd day of September 2008.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n2.9.2008<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n2.9.2008<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00394 dated 16.4.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri P. Thavasiraj. Tamilnadu Respondent – Dep’t of Atomic Energy, Mumbai Facts : By an application of 8.12.06 Shri Thavasiraj of Sattankulam […]<\/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-259532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-30T19:42:34+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T19:42:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1357,\"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\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T19:42:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 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":"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-30T19:42:34+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T19:42:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008"},"wordCount":1357,"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\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008","name":"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T19:42:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-thavasiraj-vs-dept-of-atomic-energy-mumbai-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri P. Thavasiraj vs Dept Of Atomic Energy, Mumbai on 2 September, 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\/259532","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=259532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}