WP(C) 2988/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA . In terms of the orders passed on 28.5.2010 and 14.6.2010, the learned co unsel for the petitioners was to apprise the Court as to how the construction of the Mobile Telephone Tower in his neighbour’s land is unauthorized or violates any of the petitioners’ rights under the law. The petitioners have not filed any additional affidavit, but Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners, upon reference to the statements made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, sub mits that in a populated area, the Mobile Telephone Tower should not be allowed to be erected and that the Respondent No.2 would be provided with a suitable pl ot of land. Mr. B.C. Pathak, learned counsel representing the respondents submits th at an agreement has been executed for erection of the Mobile Telephone Tower and such erection is in a vacant plot of land without disturbing any one of the loc ality. Paragraph 13 of the writ petition is quoted below :- 13. That the petitioners beg to state that the petitioners are not against the e stablishment of such a Tower at Kaniha village but the petitioners only objectio n is site of the Tower where it is established which is a heavily populated area of village more so when there is no dearth of more suitable Government vacant l and on the outskirts of village where such Tower can be easily established witho ut causing any harm to any person and even without paying any monthly rent to th e Government as the Government can allot its land for such public purpose to the respondent No.1 and under these circumstances, the eagerness or insistence of respondent No.1in setting up or construction of its Tower on the land of resp ondent No.2 only smacks biasness with the intent to give undue favour or benefit s to the respondent No.2 for oblique purposes and accordingly, the respondents a re liable to be restrained from carrying out their evil design. The petitioners having failed to demonstrate as to how their right is affected b y way of construction of the Mobile Telephone Tower in a vacant plot of land, th e writ Court will be reluctant to make a roving enquiry. Consequently, no direction can be issued. Writ petition is dismissed.