Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MS SAYQUA INJEELversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

Ms. Sayqua Injeel filed a writ petition (Writ C No. 23472 of 2026) before the Allahabad High Court challenging certain actions of the Union of India and other respondents. The petition was listed before Hon'ble Justice Vinod Diwakar. On the last date of hearing, no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and no adjournment was sought. The matter was called again on the scheduled date, but again the petitioner’s side failed to appear. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution and vacated any interim order that may have been in force.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to appear and does not seek an adjournment in a writ proceeding?

Subjects

  • procedural default
  • writ petition
  • dismissal for want of prosecution
  • interim order vacated
  • high court procedure

Judgment

                                              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                                                           WRIT - C No. - 23472 of 2026

                                    Ms Sayqua Injeel
                                                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                         Versus
                                    Union Of India And 4 Others
                                                                                                .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Abida Khatun, Maha Prasad, Mohd.
                                                                        Naushad Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)         : A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad

                                    Court No. - 38
                                                         HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

                                    1. Shri Abrar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, and Shri
                                    Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5,
                                    are present.

                                    2. On the last date of hearing, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner,
                                    and therefore, the matter was fixed for today.

                                    3. Today, when the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the
                                    petitioner, even in the revised call, nor has any adjournment slip been moved
                                    on her behalf.

                                    4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed for want of
                                    prosecution.

                                    5. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.

                                    September 21, 2026
                                    Anil K. Sharma
                                                                                             (Vinod Diwakar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
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.