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 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. A deta