Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioners, numbering 27, have filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the possession of the bunk-shops run by the petitioners on the Luz Church Road, Mylapore, or provide any other alternative site to the petitioners and to compensate the petitioners for the loss caused to them. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been in occupation of the pavements of Luz Church Road, Mylapore for the past 25 years. During 1988-89, the process of widening the road was carried out. Even at that time, the petitioners' possession was disturbed. At that time, the Corporation Officials assured that the petitioners could carry on the business on the road margin. In 1998, once again, the Corporation officials disturbed the petitioners' possession. On 19-5-2000, the petitioners' stalls were removed from the pavement and hence, this writ petition has been filed for restoration of possession as well as for the compensation, to compensate the damages caused by the officials while removing the shops. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners do not have any licence to occupy the place. Hence, there is no doubt that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the pavements which are provided for the use of the pedestrians. As admitted by the petitioners themselves that in the year 1988, when the eviction was sought for, they were permitted to occupy the road margin. It is not clear as to whether the petitioners are occupying the pavements or the road margin, i.e. in between the main road and the pavements. 4. As the petitioners do not have any valid licence, they cannot occupy the pavements, especially, when the authorities have found that the petitioners' occupation is causing hindrance to the pavement users, the pedestrians. In the past one decade, the Luz Church Road has become very busy and in fact, very near the road, near Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai as well as near Alwarpet, flyovers have been constructed to ease the traffic. When that be the case, the petitioners cannot be permitted to occupy the pavements for ever, unmindful of the inconvenience caused to the pedestrians. 5. So far as the claim for the compensation is concerned, I am of the view that the same cannot be decided in this proceedings, especially, when it is a disputed question of fact. When that be the case, the petitioners cannot be permitted to occupy the pavements for ever, unmindful of the inconvenience caused to the pedestrians. 5. So far as the claim for the compensation is concerned, I am of the view that the same cannot be decided in this proceedings, especially, when it is a disputed question of fact. First of all, the petitioners have to establish factually, as to what materials were available in the stalls which were removed by the respondents. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have not been permitted to remove the stalls on their own accord before ever eviction process commenced. When the authorities were present at the scene to commence the eviction process, the petitioners could have very well removed their articles voluntarily. Only because of their own violation in protesting against the removal of the stalls, the authorities might have forcibly removed the stalls of the petitioners. When the damage has been caused to the stalls on their own violation, it is not open for the petitioners to demand any compensation. It is well laid principle that one cannot take advantage of their own wrong and claim the benefit therefore. It has been held in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi, that when the compensation is arising out of the tortuous liability, it has to be established by letting in evidence that by virtue of the tortuous liability, the authorities are bound to pay the compensation for the loss sustained by the affected parties. It is worthwhile to refer the following paragraph from the said judgment : "9. In view of the clear proposition, of law laid by this Court in Sukamani Das Case, when disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortuous liability remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. However, it cannot be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortuous liability recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Right of life is one of the basic human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution..........." 6. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Right of life is one of the basic human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution..........." 6. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.