1.The Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board, St. Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram, Chennai  600 016. 2.The General Officer, Commanding in Chief Ministry of Defence, Southern Command, Manekji Mehta Road, Pune  411 001. 3.The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, Central Secretariat, Rajpat, New Delhi 110 011. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st Respondent from demolishing the structure belonging to the petitioner at GLRS No.388/109, 388/116 in Door No.2/52 & 2/53, Veteran Lines, Cantonment, Pallavaram, pending disposal of the review application filed under Section 57 of the Cantonments Act 2006 before the 3rd Respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.Raghul Balaji For M/s.G.R. Associates For 1st Respondent : Mr.Cheranan Mohan For M/s.King and Patridge For 2nd Respondent : Mr.Srinivasa Moorthy Central Government Counsel O R D E R M.VENUGOPAL, J. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in forbearing the 1st Respondent/Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board, St. Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram, Chennai  600 016 from demolishing the structure belonging to him at GLRS No.388/109, 388/116 in Door No.2/52 & 2/53, Veteran Lines, Cantonment, Pallavaram, Chennai, pending disposal of the Review Application filed under Section 57 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 before the 3rd Respondent. 2.Heard both sides. 3.Facts of the Case: 3.1.According to the Petitioner, he is the Proprietor of Aviation Express, which is a 24 Hour Cab Service running at Chennai Airport, pursuant to Airport Authority of India's Tender both at Domestic and International Terminals for the last 30 years. Earlier, the parking for the cars was provided in the Airport itself, but the Petitioner was recently required to vacate as the 'Airport Authority of India' required the space for its use. In order to fulfil the contract, a nearby place was sought and on 23.01.2017 a Rental Agreement was entered into between one C.Suresh, Director of M/s.Chelliah Chandar Buildings (Landlord) and the Petitioner in respect of the premises under reference to specify the requirements of car maintenance shed, fuel storage tank with dispensing pump, toilet bathrooms etc. for its employees, which is a basic amenity to be provided. Also that, Temporary structures were put up for car maintenance sheds. 3.2.In so far as the permission for fuel storage tank is concerned, appropriate permissions under Petroleum and Explosive Acts were applied for from the Concerned Authorities. Letter of communications seeking appropriate permissions and no objection given by the Central Government, Fire Department and the Indian Oil Corporations willingness to supply was enclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Appeal. 3.3.Although the Petitioner was under the impression that being temporary structures, approval from Cantonment need not be required, on advice and by way of abundant caution on 12.05.2017, a letter seeking for an approval in regard to the erection of Asbestos shed in the Land comprising at New No.2/53 Cantonment Pallavaram in RS.No.894 & 896 was sent by him to the 2nd Respondent together with a detailed site plan indicating the area with definitions. In the meanwhile, on 15.05.2017 show cause notices were received calling upon the Landowner to show, why action cannot be taken under the relevant provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006 alleging unauthorised construction. 3.4.The Petitioner, on receipt of the five notices dated 05.05.2017 and 15.05.2017, sent a reply to the 1st Respondent stating that the constructions related to the subject matter falls under the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Explosives Act, 1884. Further, the constructions put up in the premises are temporary in nature and are subject to numerous applications projected before the concerned authorities. By way of abundant caution, he had applied for permission before the Respondent Cantonment through letter dated 12.05.2017 for regularising the temporary asbestos shed and toilets constructed. Hence, there is no violation, since the Petitioner had complied with all the requirements. 3.5.The stand of the Petitioner is that on 31.07.2017 he sent a letter to the 2nd Respondent