The Information Commission upheld the respondent's provision of information, ruling there was no mala fide and the complaint lacked merit.

ORDER

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) The applicant requests the email correspondence between the PIO and the applicant from 05th April, 24 to 05th May, 24 regarding the RTI request IITKH/R/E/24/00210 and this RTI request.

2) It has come to the notice of the applicant that the emails dated Feb 29th, 24 and 06th Mar, 24 from PIC, Counselling Centre to the applicant in enclosure A of the reply to the RTI request IITKH/R/E/24/00210 were not received by the email id of applicant even though they were spaced a week apart. In this connection, the applicant asked the PIC to forward these emails on 25th April, 24. Upon not receiving a response again, the applicant used his another email id to contact the PIC. The applicant got a response on his other email id and the PIC was kind enough to include his attempts to respond to the email dated 25th April, 24. This has lead the applicant to believe that his primary email address had been blocked for outgoing email, by the relevant authorities, in the institutes email network powered or assisted by Zimbra Web Client. Hence, is the applicants primary email address, skthambe(at)outlook(dot)com, blocked for outgoing email from within the institute on the institutes email network?

3) The order or circular or memo (electronic or otherwise) issued in this connection is requested.

4) The reasons for the blocking of only outgoing email but not the incoming email from the applicant are requested.

5) Copies of any outgoing emails that have been blocked by the institute are requested.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1-5: No information is available with the counselling center.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.07.2024 stated that:

Professor - in- Charge, Counselling, Center and Head, Computer Informatics Centre, IIT Kharagpur is requested to revisit the RTI application of the appellant with respect to this instant first appeal and to provide additional information (if any) to the Public Information Officer of this institute latest by 17/07/2024 f or onward transmission to the appellant at the earliest.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 27.09.2024.

5. The Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Babulal Rajak, Joint Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that he had sought reasons for blocking his email but no proper reply had been furnished by the CPIO.

6. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 28.05.2024 and submitted that point-wise relevant available information had been furnished to the appellant. A written submission dated 08.10.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record, wherein all the queries have been addressed appropriately.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has provided point-wise reply to the complainant vide letter dated 28.05.2024 and vide written submission dated 08.10.2025. It is not the case that the respondent has not given any reply to the Complainant and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

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