# Arun Mishra v. C.I.C., New Delhi & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 280
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-08
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 25139 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-mishra-v-c-i-c-new-delhi-anr-47812
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -
Ch. XXII, R. 1 - Allahabad High Court
(Right to Information) Rules, 2006 -
Right to information - Information
regarding procedure of listing as fresh
case was sought - Two cases in
respect of which information was
sought for, were never directed to be
listed as fresh after they were first
listed on board as fresh - No statusinformation from the website was
obtained - Effect - Held, 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 -
Rules do provide answer to the query
made by the petitioner - High Court
and
Appellate
Authority
rightly
rejected
the
application
for
information. (Para 26, 27 and 28)
B. Duty of the Advocate - Procedure as
provided under the Rules, duty to know it -
In the absence of knowledge, seeking of the
information under RTI Act - Permissibility -
Held, 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. (Para 27)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

55. Passing of the order today may
not be construed to an expression that this
Court has gone into the merit of the lis, as it
is always open for the competent court of
law to decide the matter without being
influenced or obsessed by any of the
observations made hereinabove.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 280
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 25139 of 2022

Arun Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
C.I.C., New Delhi & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Chandan Sharma

A. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -
Ch. XXII, R. 1 - Allahabad High Court
(Right to Information) Rules, 2006 -
Right to information - Information
regarding procedure of listing as fresh
case was sought - Two cases in
respect of which information was
sought for, were never directed to be
listed as fresh after they were first
listed on board as fresh - No statusinformation from the website was
obtained - Effect - Held, 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 -
Rules do provide answer to the query
made by the petitioner - High Court
and
Appellate
Authority
rightly
rejected
the
application
for
information. (Para 26, 27 and 28)
B. Duty of the Advocate - Procedure as
provided under the Rules, duty to know it -
In the absence of knowledge, seeking of the
information under RTI Act - Permissibility -
Held, 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. (Para 27)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

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
11 All. Arun Mishra Vs. C.I.C., New Delhi & Anr.
281
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 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.
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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.

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
11 All. Arun Mishra Vs. C.I.C., New Delhi & Anr.
283
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. 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. 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
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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.

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.

13. 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.

14. Sri Chandan Sharma has relied
upon Chapter VI Rule 6 of the High Court
Rules, 1952 which provides for cause list to
be proposed.

15. 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."

16. 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."

17. 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."

18. 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
11 All. Arun Mishra Vs. C.I.C., New Delhi & Anr.
285
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."

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. "

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.
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.

26. 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.

27. 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
11 All. Zila Panchayat & Anr. Vs. Sri Krishna Lal Dixit
287
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.

28. 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.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 287
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 49873 of 2003

Zila Panchayat & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Krishna Lal Dixit ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Sri Aditya Kumar
Tripathi, Sri Anil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi

A. Civil Law - Suit for cancellation of Saledeed - Abatement of suit - Character of
document - Void and voidable document -
Distinction, how can be drawn - Smt.
Dulari Devi's case relied upon - Where
there is fraudulent misrepresentation as
to the character of a document executed
by a person, it would be a void document,
but in case where there is fraudulent
misrepresentation as to the contents of
the
document,
the
character
of
a
document
is
voidable
-
Held,
the
documents are void documents as in the
instant
case
there
was
fraudulent
misrepresentation as to the character of
the document and not to the contents
thereof. (Para 17 and 18)
B. UP Consolidation and Holdings Act,
1953 - Section 5(2)(a) - Abatement of
suit
-
Jurisdiction
of
civil
court
-
Defendant's name is recorded in revenue
record - Effect - Held, since the name of
the
petitioner/defendant
have
been
recorded in the revenue record, therefore,
the suit is not cognizable by civil court and
is cognizable by revenue court. (Para 23)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Civil Appeal No. 2998 of 1980; Smt. Dulari
Devi Vs Janardhan Singh & ors.
2. Shri Ram & anr. Vs Ist A.D.J. & ors. 2001 (3)
SCC 24
3. Pyarelal Vs Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) & ors.
2019 (3) SCC 692
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for
the respondent.

2. The petitioners by means of the
present writ petition have assailed the order
dated 21.08.1999 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Etawah in Original Suit
No.12 of 1981 (Krishna Lal Dixit Vs. Zila
Parishad, Etawah and Others) whereby