Central Information Commission
Chitresh Kumar Banjare vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 7 May, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: Two Second Appeals.
(1) CIC/JNUND/A/2025/113575
(2) CIC/JNUND/A/2025/115284
CHITRESH KUMAR BANJARE .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
THE CPIO
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY,
RTI CELL, J.N.U.,
NEW DELHI-110067 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.04.2026
Date of Decision : 30.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as the parties are common and the RTI
applications in question are identical in nature.
(1) CIC/JNUND/A/2025/113575
(2) CIC/JNUND/A/2025/115284
Relevant facts emerging from Appeals:
RTI application filed on : 13.01.2025
CPIO replied on : 12.02.2025
First appeal filed on : 16.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.05.2025
2nd Appeal dated : 17.04.2025
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"स वनय नवेदन है क जवाहरलाल नेह व व व यालय नई द ल म ि थत सतलज छा ावास के माह दसंबर 2024 के मेष बल बुक (िजस पर छा के क े फा ट, लंच एवं डनर का ववरण होता है ) क छाया त दान करने क महान कृपा कर। इसके अलावा सतलज छा ावास म रह रहे मानसून सेमे टर 2024 म पंजीकृत सभी छा के फो लयो क छाया त दान करने क महान कृपा कर।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.02.2025 stating as under:
"Sub: Response to the RTI received on January 12, 2025, from Mr. Chitresh Vanjare through email.
Dear Sir, It may be noted that the information, i.e., details of mess bill and copy of residents folio, involves THIRD-PARTY personal information; hence, it can not be given. Also, the applicant writes that the requisite RTI fee copy has been attached to the email, but no such attachment was found with the email. Hence, it is treated as an incomplete application.
The Application stands disposed of. The applicant may be informed of this. The applicant may please approach the appellate authority at JNU, if not satisfied with the response."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.02.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 09.05.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.Page 2 of 4
Respondent: Shri Abhishek K. Singh, Dy. Registrar/ Nodal CPIO along with Shri Raju Parghi, Sr. Warden/CPIO, Sutlej Hostel and Shri Ravi Rameshchandra, Warden present in person.
5. The Appellant did not turn up for hearing despite service.
6. Written statement of the CPIO dated 28.04.2026 is taken on record.
7. CPIO while defending these Appeals stated that a reply has been provided to the Appellant earlier and also now with the written statement. CPIO stated that has sought copy of mess-bills and resident folios of students residing in Sutlej hostel of JNU. As the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal records of third-party students' disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the reply has been provided to the Appellant, accordingly. CPIO further apprised the Commission that Appellant is a habitual RTI applicant who has filed multiple RTI application seeking similar nature of information to harass the CPIOs, however, all his RTI applications have been duly replied on every occasion keeping in mind the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the CPIO and perusal of the records observed that as far as RTI application in question is concerned, it is found that suitable reply in terms of the RTI Act, 2005 was provided to the Appellant earlier and now vide written submission dated 28.04.2026. The Respondent/CPIO has stated that a copy of written submission has already been provided to the Appellant.
9. Further, the Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO in denying the personal information pertaining to mess bills and resident folio records of other students which is personal information of third parties and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012. It is also noteworthy that with the enactment of Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 establishes that Page 3 of 4 Public Authority no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing public interest against privacy.
10. Accordingly, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter in the absence of any contest by the Appellant after receiving the response from the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri CHITRESH KUMAR BANJARE Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)