Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

PRIYANKA GOYALversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The order dismissing the writ petition without a counter affidavit was set aside, and the petition was restored.

Summary

The appellant, Priyanka Goyal, filed a writ petition seeking payment of her current salary, alleging a continuing cause of action despite a 16‑year lapse since her appointment. The single judge dismissed the petition at the fresh stage without ordering a counter affidavit, reasoning that the delay barred relief. The State argued that the necessary facts to justify the salary claim were not established, but also conceded that the petition had been dismissed ex parte. On appeal, the Court held that dismissing the petition without first inviting a counter affidavit was a clear error of principle, especially given the claim of a continuing cause of action. Consequently, the special appeal was allowed, the single judge’s order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored to its original status with directions for filing counter‑affidavit and rejoinder.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition can be dismissed at the fresh stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
  • Whether the doctrine of laches applies when the petitioner alleges a continuing cause of action.
  • Whether the delay of 16 years bars the relief sought in the writ petition.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • special appeal
  • counter affidavit
  • continuing cause of action
  • delay
  • laches
  • procedural error

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 602 of 2026

Priyanka Goyal
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of Up And 5 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                            :    Anil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                           :    C.S.C.

Court No. - 3
                HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
                HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the original petitioner-appellant and Sri
Ankit Gaur learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Present appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single
judge dated 10.04.2026 in Priyanka Goyal Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others,
2026:AHC:79101. By that order, learned single judge has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the original petitioner-appellant at the fresh stage
without calling for Counter Affidavit.

3. Submission is, cause of action was continuing. It is the reasoning of the
learned single judge that the writ petition was filed after 16 years from
appointment, yet, the continuing cause of action and the entitlement
claimed by the petitioner to be paid current salary, may not have been
ignored.

4. Learned Standing Counsel states that at present necessary facts have
not been established as may entitle the petitioner to payment of current
salary, as well. At the same time, on query made, it could not be disputed
that the writ petition has been dismissed at the fresh stage itself, without
calling for Counter Affidavit.

5. Seen in that light, a clear error on principle has been caused in the order
of the learned single judge in dismissing the writ petition in entirety, at
the ex parte/fresh stage itself, without calling for Counter Affidavit.
                                                                                              SPLA No. 602 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    6. Only after Counter Affidavit may have been invited, the issue of
                                    validity of selection and approval etc. may have been considered. As to
                                    the reasoning that there are delay and laches, in face of plea of continuing
                                    cause of action, that objection (raised by the State) if sustained, may only
                                    lead to modification of the relief claimed.

                                    7. The claim raised may not have been rejected or decided in entirety
                                    without calling for Counter Affidavit. Accordingly, the Special Appeal
                                    is allowed. The order of the learned single judge is set aside. Writ petition
                                    is restored to its original number and status.

                                    8. Notice (in the writ petition) be issued to respondent No. 6. Steps be
                                    taken within a week. All respondents may file Counter Affidavit within
                                    six weeks. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file Rejoinder
                                    Affidavit. List thereafter.

                                    9. Let a copy of this order be placed on the ordersheet of the writ petition.



                                                     (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Faraz




Digitally signed by :-
FARAZ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.