M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Petitioner has focused the present Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in forbearing the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 from allowing the Respondents 7 to 9 from proceedings with an illegal construction of commercial complex in S.Nos.76, 77, 80 & 81, in N.S.B. Road, Trichy, on the North of Petitioner's premises and consequently to demolish all the structures constructed in violations and deviations of permission, plan approval of the First Respondent as well as violating licence condition of Sixth Respondent over and above 10 meters height.

(2) SUMMARY OF Writ GERMANE LONG FACTS:

(i). The Petitioner is running a fresh fruit juice shop in New T.S. No. 81 (Old S.No.2562) in N.S.B. Road, Trichirappalli in the name and style of “M/s. P.H. Mohamed Nasiruddin Firm” since 1959 and tenants of the Prince of Arcot Endowments. As a matter of fact, the said business was started by her Father-in-Law P.H. Mohamed Nasiruddin in the year 1959 and after his death, the said business is continued as a partnership business, which has earned name and fame by its quality and service to the public in the locality.

(ii). The Eighth and Ninth Respondents as the 'Lessee' of the Seventh Respondent/ Endowment started putting up construction adjacent to petitioner's juice shop premises in S.No.81 for expansion of the shopping complex already in existence in S.No.76. Indeed, the Seventh Respondent had obtained permission for construction and approval for the building plan for the ninth Respondent from the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in File No. F2/2573/04 of Trichirappalli Corporation, dated, 30.04.2004 and LPA Order in File No. 871/2004 dated 20.12.2004, according to which, 4.57 metres (15 feet) open space should be left to the North of her juice shop.

(iii). In view of the fact that the site in question is within the distance of 110 meters from the Archaeological Monumental area viz., 'Main Guard Gate', it required permission from the Sixth Respondent and that the Seventh Respondent sought prior permission for construction of the commercial complex for the Eight and Ninth Respondents. The Sixth Respondent had issued the permission by means of licence, dated 11.10.2004, which is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the said licence. Moreover, the construction ought to be put up within a period of one year stipulating seven conditions and deviation of any of the conditions would entail demolition of deviated construction as an unauthorised and illegal one.

(iv). The seven conditions are (1)The Construction is restricted upto a height of 10 meters (ten meters only); (2)No building of historical importance, which has been in existence for more than 75 years may be demolished; (3)In the facade of the building elements of ancient architecture be incorporated; (4)Appropriate breathing space be ensured around the building for better maintenance of the environment; (5)The earth work excavation should be done under the direct supervision, of the Curator, Government Museum, Tiruchirappalli; (6)If any Antiquities/Ancient structure is found should be reported to the Curator, Government Museum and the work should be stopped immediately; and (7)This licence will stand cancelled if any ancient remains are discovered by the Curator, Government Museum, Tiruchirappalli.

(v). The stand of the Petitioner is that the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 had obtained a building plan approval only upto second Floor for a height not exceeding 10 metres, but the construction had proceeded upto Fourth Floor. Apart from that, the Respondents Nos.7 and 8 had not left open space of 15 feet on the North of the petitioner's juice shop. In fact, only one feet was left by them, which not only prevented the customers coming to the petitioner's shop, but posed life threat to her and her customers and damage to her premises. The Respondent Nos.7 to 9 had converted the approved parking underground area into commercial business Floor.

(vi). The P