JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Arun Mishra, the petitioner in person, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner before this Court claims to be a practising Advocate of this Court had presented writ petition in the category of Writ-C before registry of this Court to be placed on board before a bench concerned as a fresh case, about 4 and half years ago. The registry allotted category and number to the petition as Writ C No. 59649 of 2017 with party name Arun Mishra as petitioner and State of U.P. and one more authority as respondents. This petition was presented through counsel Mr. Mahabir Yadav and the matter was placed on board before Division Bench of this Court as fresh on 15.12.2017 and after recording a short order, this matter was directed to come up for hearing on 19th January, 2018. The order passed by Division Bench on 15.12.2017 runs as under:- “Mr. D.S. Yadav, learned counsel holding for Mr. Mahabir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks short adjournment. Mr. N.I. Jafri, learned counsel submits that a caveat filed by him on behalf of respondent No.2 has been wrongly reported, though it was filed in some other case. In the circumstances, the Registry is directed to delete his name as Advocate for respondent No. 2. His caveat is restored to file. Petition to come up for hearing on 19.1.2018.” (emphasis added) 3. The petitioner seems to have presented another petition with the registry in the category of Public Interest Litigation to be presented before Division Bench as per roster provided. The registry allotted code/category and number to the writ petition as Public Interest Litigation 'PIL' No. 940 of 2019 with party name Arun Mishra as petitioner v. State of U.P. and Other four authorities as respondents. This petition was also presented through Counsel Sri Mahabir Yadav. This matter came up before Division Bench on 26.4.2019 as fresh and giving time to the learned Standing Counsel to have instructions in the matter, it was fixed 3rd May, 2019. The order passed by Division Bench dated 26.4.2019 runs as under: “As requested, put up this matter on 3.5.2019 to enable learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions.” 4. This matter came up before Division Bench on 26.4.2019 as fresh and giving time to the learned Standing Counsel to have instructions in the matter, it was fixed 3rd May, 2019. The order passed by Division Bench dated 26.4.2019 runs as under: “As requested, put up this matter on 3.5.2019 to enable learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions.” 4. This matter bearing Writ-C No. 59649 of 2017 as per status report of the case provided under Chapter VIII Rule 30 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of the Court) shows that matter was listed on 19th January, 2018 and was passed over. Similarly, status report in respect of Public Interest Litigation No. 940 of 2019 shows that the matter was listed for orders on 3rd May, 2019 and then 23rd March, 2021, but was passed over. Both the matters have not been listed thereafter. Since the matters were not listed thereafter as fresh matters, the petitioner according to the averments made in the writ petition tried to get them listed as fresh, but could not succeed nor, was he able to know the listing rules and so he moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 read with Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 and two questions were made by him of which he needed reply : “Question No. 1:-Procedure/rule to list (as fresh) the WPIL no. 940/2019 and writ petition no. (c) 59649/17 for hearing of Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad. Question No. 2:-Number of cause list procured on 02.08.2019 to be distributed to Advocates by this Hon’ble High Court.” 5. Petitioner was furnished with information as per the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 in respect of question no. 1 that desired information could not be provided as it was enumerated in detail in Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. It was further replied that the information sought by the applicant was not covered under the definition of ‘Information’ as provided under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner/applicant was further suggested to visit official website to get further information regarding question no. 2. It was further replied that the information sought by the applicant was not covered under the definition of ‘Information’ as provided under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner/applicant was further suggested to visit official website to get further information regarding question no. 2. A detail reply given to the petitioner is reproduced as under: “The applicant be requested to deposit the requisite fee (in the form of Demand Draft) as provided under Rule 3 and Amended Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 are stated as under:- Rule 3: Every application shall be made for one particular item of information only. Rule 4: Each application shall be accompanied by cash or draft or pay order drawn in favour of the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, or District Judge of the concerned District Court as the case might be, at the following rules: (i) Rs. 250/-if the requested information is related to tenders documents/bids/quotations/business contract or requested information is in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is store in any electronic form. (ii) Rs. 50/-if information is obtained other than (I) above.” 6. The petitioner/applicant not satisfied with reply furnished to him under Right to Information Act, preferred appeal before the Central Information Commission and after conducting hearing in the matter and noting down written submission furnished to it by Registrar of the High Court of the Commission took following decision. “On analysis of the facts of the case, it is noted that there is no legal infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent because information about general listing is available in public domain viz. The Allahabad High Court Rules. The RTI Act does not cast any obligation on the public officials to interpret the information available in public domain and provide customized replies to the information seeker. In the event the Appellant seeks information to get his matter listed, he must approach the concerned Registry to obtain case specific information, outside the purview of the RTI Act. Thus where there is an alternate efficacious established process of law available for seeking such information, public officials of the High Court cannot be compelled to answer such queries under the RTI Act. No further action is deemed necessary in this case. Thus where there is an alternate efficacious established process of law available for seeking such information, public officials of the High Court cannot be compelled to answer such queries under the RTI Act. No further action is deemed necessary in this case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 7. The petitioner who has appeared in person has challenged the decision of the appellate authority dated 28th September, 2021, basically relating to reply given to question no. 1. The petitioner submits before this Court that as far as reply to question no. 2 is concerned, he is not aggrieved. With regard to question no. 1 he submits that correct and true reply/information has not been furnished by the authority and even appellate authority failed to appreciate it and therefore, the authorities, were not justified in just referring to the rules. According to him High Court Rules do not provide for any procedure for listing of fresh matters as query was made, inasmuch as on the official website of the High Court, there is no such information available which may have helped the petitioner /applicant in getting the correct information about listing procedure of fresh cases of the High Court and hence he submits that the order needed to be set aside directing Information Officer of the High Court to furnish true and correct information qua query made by him in respect of listing of fresh cases which are filed/presented before registry of this Court. 8. Per contra, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, namely Central Public Information Officer, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, submits that Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 contain necessary rules of procedure for presentation of fresh matters with the registry and then before this Court as per roster assigned to the benches by the Chief Justice and, therefore, it cannot be said that the High Court Rules are silent about the same. He further submits that as far as fresh matters are concerned when they are laid before the concerned bench by the registry and if they are taken up and orders are passed then status to the cases gets assigned as per orders passed. He further submits that as far as fresh matters are concerned when they are laid before the concerned bench by the registry and if they are taken up and orders are passed then status to the cases gets assigned as per orders passed. If the concerned bench directs a particular case to continue as fresh, then such a matter is listed as fresh and if no such order is passed there is simple direction to list a case whether for order or admission or hearing then such a case would get the category of listed matters to be listed on the date fixed or as per routine. He further explains that once the matter has gone on the list, which is called as ‘Cause List’ published under the authority of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, then such matters come on the date fixed by the Court and in the event date is not fixed in a particular matter then matter would be listed in ordinary course of listing. 9. He next submits that in order to bring out a case from ordinary course of listing, the petitioner or for that matter respondent in a case has every right to move a miscellaneous application before the bench concerned which has the roster of a particular category of cases for listing matter out of turn and direction issued by Court then matter is listed accordingly. Once the Court passes judicial order of listing of case on the cause list of this Court on a particular day or date then such case is listed on that day or date. 10. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the High Court that there is a computer generated status information system developed in the High Court and under Chapter VIII Rule 30 of the Rules of the High Court, any person who is a party to the petition or a counsel can obtain such information by depositing the requisite fee and then computer generated slip giving correct status of the case whether fresh or listed matter in detail. However, it is argued, summary details are also available on official website of the High Court of each cases which can be obtained by any person having access to the official website of the High Court. However, it is argued, summary details are also available on official website of the High Court of each cases which can be obtained by any person having access to the official website of the High Court. He further submits that there is nothing confidential about status of a case whether it is a fresh or a listed matter. 11. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the High Court that petitioner before this Court has nowhere stated in the entire writ petition that he ever applied to get status of his cases in respect of which he had a complaint that cases were not being listed on board as fresh. He further submits that orders dated 15.12.2017 passed in Writ C No. 59649 of 2017 and order dated 26th April, 2019 passed in Public Interest Litigation 'PIL' no. 940 of 2019 go on to show that these matters were never directed to be listed as fresh matters and in such view of the matter these matters could not be listed as fresh, therefore, query made by the petitioner in respect of these two cases taking them as fresh was absolutely misplaced. However, in defence of the reply given to the petitioner/ applicant, he submits that Rules of the High Court since provided for every such information in detail as to how the matter to be presented before the registry to be placed before the Court and how the application can be filed to get the case listed otherwise in ordinary listing, no further information was required to be given to the petitioner and, therefore, information furnished by the High Court was sufficient and so the order passed by the appellate authority and reason assigned therein cannot be faulted with. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar and having gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition, information furnished to the petitioner/applicant by the Central Public Information Officer of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 07th September, 2019, the order of the appellate authority qua decision made therein two points clearly emerge for consideration: 1. Whether petitioners’ two cases in respect of which he wanted to have information regarding listing of fresh cases, information sought for was correct one and relevant to his complaint ? 2. Whether petitioners’ two cases in respect of which he wanted to have information regarding listing of fresh cases, information sought for was correct one and relevant to his complaint ? 2. Whether rules of the Court are themselves sufficient being codified rules as they provided for detail procedures for the cases to be listed on board and no specific information was needed additionally to be furnished. 13. In so far as first point is concerned, from the perusal of the two orders that have been quoted hereinabove in this judgment it clearly transpires that these two cases were never directed to be listed as fresh matters. Once it is a fact admitted on record that these two cases were never directed to be listed as fresh, it was out of question to list those cases as fresh on board. 14. The only issue arises how the matter to be listed. The status shows that the matters were initially listed on 19th January, 2018 and 3rd May, 2019 respectively. Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition was further listed for admission 23rd March, 2021, it appears in its ordinary course by roster but thereafter case was not listed. Now question, therefore, is, what petitioner would be doing if these cases were not on board before the concerned bench. 15. Sri Chandan Sharma has relied upon Chapter VI Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, 1952 which provides for cause list to be proposed. 16. Before coming to the above, I would first refer to Rule 5 as follows: “Subject to the directions of the Chief Justice, the Registrar shall cause to be published from time to time a list of all cases ready and likely to be put up for hearing.” Now Rule 6 provides as follows: “the Registrar shall, subject to such directions as the Chief Justice may give from time to time, cause to be prepared a cause list for each day on which the Court sits containing lists of cases which may be heard by the different Benches of the Court. The List shall also state the hour at which and the room in which each Bench shall sit.” Chapter VI Rule 8 provides thus: “Case in which a date is fixed-A case in which a date has been fixed for hearing shall, so far as possible, be placed in the Cause List immediately after miscellaneous and part-heard case.” Chapter VIII Rule 33 provides for list of cases out of turn Chapter VIII Rule 33 of the High Court Rules, 1952 is reproduced hereunder: “Certain applications to be laid before Chief Justice for orders.-An application for the expediting of the hearing of a case or for listing a case out of turn or for the removal of a case to be tried and determined by the Court under Rule 4 or for the withdrawal of a case under Art. 228 of the Constitution shall be laid before the Chief Justice in respect of any other Judge or a Bench nominated by the Chief Justice in respect of any case or class of cases] for orders.” 17. The provisions that are quoted hereinabove go on to indicate that in general rules provide for preparation of cause list in which cases are listed on board before particular benches. Interpretation would be that registry would be listing a case ordinarily when it is ready may be for order or admission or hearing and then as per roster under Rule 6. Rule 8 provides listing of those cases also in which date has been fixed. Chapter VIII Rule 33 of the Rules of the High Court, 1952 since provides for listing of hearing cases out of turn then those cases shall also be listed in the cause list in the event orders are passed by the concerned respective benches on application being moved in that behalf for hearing of such cases. Rules also provide for adjournment of cases on applications or otherwise on mention. 18. Having gone through these rules which lay down comprehensive and exhaustive procedure for listing of matters other than fresh, I find that sufficient guidelines are there for registry to list cases on board and it cannot be said that rules are silent and therefore, information furnished by an information officer of the High Court and decision taken by the appellate authority cannot be said to be sufficient as they referred to rules of the Court for necessary information. As the Rules of the Court are in public domain, therefore, such information shall be taken to be in public domain. Under the circumstances, such information is not required to be especially additionally furnished. 19. In so far as fresh matters are concerned, although question made by the petitioner applicant were misplaced as two cases in respect of which information was sought for those cases were never directed to be listed as fresh after they were first listed on board as fresh before the bench concerned, however, I proceed to deal with this aspect also in the larger interest of litigants and lawyers. 20. Extract of provisions as contained under Rule 1 of Chapter XXII relevant to the controversy is reproduced as under: “1. Application :-(1) An application for a direction or order or writ under Article 226 B [and Article 227] of the Constitution other than a writ in the nature of habeas corpus shall be made to the Division Bench appointed to receive applications or, on any day on which no such Bench is sitting, to the Judge appointed to receive applications in civil matters. In the latter event the Judge shall direct that the application be laid before a Division Bench for orders: Provided that an application under Article 226 C[and Article 227] of the Constitution questioning a judgment, decree or order made or purported to be made by revenue Courts including the Board of Revenue arising out of any proceeding under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, or the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, or the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, or the Jaunsar Bawar Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, or the Kumaun and Uttar Khand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960, or any order or judgment of any authority constituted under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 including the Director of Consolidation, shall be presented to a Judge sitting alone and appointed to receive such applications and those already presented to the Division Bench shall be heard by a Single Judge.” 21. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions as quoted hereinabove, makes it quite explicit that once a matter is presented with registry and relates to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will be placed before a bench concerned if it is available. Now once matter is placed on board before a bench concerned as fresh, immediately or in cases if daily a bench is available so naturally such a case will be first presented before concerned bench captioned as ‘Fresh Cases’. However, I must hasten to add that since Rule 6 of Chapter VIII, directs for listing of matter subject to direction of Chief Justice, if any, the Chief Justice has this discretionary power to assign the matter presented before the registry to be placed on board, on different dates as well, looking to the burden of work. It is for the concerned bench to further direct thereafter that a case/cases to be listed as fresh on a particular date or to be taken upotherwise in general cause list on a date fixed or it can also direct case or cases to be listed after lapse of some time. Left over matters, which could not be heard do continue as fresh cases on board for want of specific orders. 22. Similarly again the procedure relating for presentation of appeals and applications and other matters have been prescribed under Chapter XI of the Rules of the Court. These appeals and applications are presented before the Court for admission so procedure is same that they are to be presented in the category of fresh cases, when they are presented and placed on board and when they are further directed to be listed their status will be governed by the order that may be passed by Court concerned. The defective appeals are also listed similarly. In so far original jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit is concerned that is prescribed for under Chapter XV. 23. The suit once filed is heard by a particular bench which is notified for the said purpose by the Chief Justice. Elections petitions are presented before the Registrar under Chapter XV-A of the Rules of the Court, upon representation before the Registrar, election petitioners are registered and numbered and are tried by the bench which is assigned by Chief justice to try such election petition. Elections petitions are presented before the Registrar under Chapter XV-A of the Rules of the Court, upon representation before the Registrar, election petitioners are registered and numbered and are tried by the bench which is assigned by Chief justice to try such election petition. Similarly the procedure is prescribed for the appeal and application in criminal jurisdiction of the Court under Chapter XVII. First case is filed before the registry and registry places them on board before the Court concerned, which is assigned to it whehter criminal appeals, or revisions and/or applications. Thus a very exhaustive and detailed procedure has been prescribed for hearing of jail appeals. 24. Orders of this Court are available on the official website of the High Court which can be obtained by any person by having access to the Court’s official website. 25. In view of above therefore, rules do provide answer to the query made by the petitioner applicant and petitioner applicant having admittedly not studied the rules even though he is a learned Advocate of this Court and he having not obtained status information of the cases concerned as per procedure prescribed, is himself to be blamed. It should be duty of the every advocate of the court concerned to know procedure of presenting cases and getting cases listed on board as rules of such Court provide for. It can only be termed as unfortunate that a lawyer himself would not go through the rules and would find it more convenient to seek information under Right to Information Act, 2005 for no justifiable reason. 26. In view of above and as I have already held that reply by the High Court was justified one and that appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal holding that Rules of the High Court provide such informations, I do not find any force in the present petition and accordingly dismiss the same.