Dismissed¶17

Mohd Shaqib and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025WPIL/2615/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court PIL dismissed - mobile tower installation restraint refused; bald allegations of ill-effects of mobile tower unsupported by material; precedents relied on: Asha Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (2017) 1 UPLBEC 261 and Residents Welfare Association Vs. Union of India, Writ-C No. 16888 of 2022 (11.11.2022); bench: Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice with Kshitij Shailendra, J.; decided September 11, 2025; location: ADA Colony, Shahjamal, Shanti Niketan, Mayawati Quarters, District Aligarh; petitioners Mohd Shaqib and another versus State of U.P. and 6 others.

What did the court decide?

The petition rests only on bald allegations pertaining to ill-effects of the erection of a mobile tower; no material worth the name has been produced to indicate any substance in the allegations. ¶12

Mohd Shaqib and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2615 of 2025

¶3

Mohd Shaqib and another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and 6 others

¶7

	..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohd. Haleem for Shahwal, Ram Sajiwan	Anjani Kumar Prajapati
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sudhanshu Srivastava, (S.C.), Vibhu Rai, Hari	Jagdish Pathak Nath Tripathi

¶8

Chief Justice's Court

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶10

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed seeking a restraint against respondent nos. 6 and 7 from installing or operating the proposed second mobile tower in ADA Colony, Shahjamal, Shanti Niketan, Mayawati Quarters, District Aligarh.

¶11

Submissions have been made that one mobile tower is already existing and another is being installed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 and on account of ill-effects of erection of mobile tower, the respondents be restrained from setting up another mobile tower.

¶12

We have gone through the averments made in the petition. Except for making bald allegations pertaining to ill-effects of the erection of mobile tower, no material worth the name has been produced to indicate that there is any substance in the allegations, sought to be made.

¶13

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Asha Mishra Vs. State of U.P. : (2017) 1 UPLBEC 261 has categorically laid down that there was no substance in the allegations of the said nature, while dismissing similar nature public interest petition. The said order in the case of Asha Mishra (supra) has been followed in the case of Residents Welfare Association Vs. Union of India : Writ-C No. 16888 of 2022 decided on 11.11.2022, wherein also the similar view has been expressed.

¶14

In view of the above fact situation, no case is made out for entertaining

¶15

WPIL No. 2615 of 2025

¶16

¶17

the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed .

¶18

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶19

September 11, 2025 AHA/Sandeep

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Shaqib and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shaqib and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases