Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Suni Vasudevan vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 21 November, 2025

                                      केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NITCL/A/2024/634885

 Suni Vasudevan                                                  ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
 CPIO:
 National Institute of Technology,
 Calicut, Kerala                                             ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 17.04.2024                FA    : 14.06.2024              SA     : 12.08.2024

 CPIO : 16.05.2024               FAO : 11.07.2024                Hearing : 18.11.2025


Date of Decision: 21.11.2025
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) "Kindly intimate name & designation of employee/official/officials who is/are serving as administrator and accesses & monitors and manages official Google Admin and Workspace Account and Google email administration of NIT Calicut.

2) Please indicate whether Google Vault License is available in NIT Calicut official Google Workspace purchase.

If yes, also inform how many individual Google Vault licenses are available at NIT Calicut.

3) Please intimate the name & designation of employee/official/officials who is/are serving as the administrator and accesses & monitors and manages the official Google Vault accounts of NIT Calicut.

4) Please provide certified copies of all email deletion requests from the Dean (Research and Consultancy) of NIT Calicut and from the Dean (R&C) personal email account and from all the email accounts related to Dean (R&C) office and by the faculty email of Mrs Sandhyarani, which were carried out and executed by the official NIT Calicut email admin during the period from 4th August 2023 to 17th April 2024.

5) Please provide the certified official copies of all the emails in NIT Calicut official Google Vault Account from 4th August 2023 to 17th April 2024 related to and originated from Dean (R&C) email account, from all email accounts related to Dean (R&C) office, from all email accounts related to Director NIT Calicut, from Dean (Faculty Welfare) email account, from all email accounts related to Dean (Faculty Welfare) office, and from the official NITC email ids of Mrs Sandhyarani, Mr. Sudhakumar and Mr. Ravi Varma, faculties at NIT Calicut."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"1: Authorised Faculty and Staff of CNC.

2: No, NIT Calicut does not have a Google Vault license and uses only a free license.

3: Not applicable 4: No such request came to CNC 5: Not applicable"

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 11.07.2024 stated that:

"With reference to your appeal it is informed that all the available information has already been furnished by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vide Letter No. DO/DR/RTI /018/2024 dated 16/05/2024.

Further it is added that only such information can be supplied under the Act that is available and existing and is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the Public Authority. The Public Information officer is not supposed to create information that is not part of the record of the Public Authority."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.08.2024.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Milina, AR & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act leaving for no scope of intervention at this stage.

8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 21.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, National Institute of Technology, NIT Campus (P.O.), Calicut, Kozhikode, Kerala - 673601

2. Suni Vasudevan Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)