JUDGMENT : K.V.ARAVIND, J. Heard Sri Paras Jain, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri B. S. Satyanand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and Sri P. D. Surana, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The appellants are the owners of the immovable property bearing No. 8/1, II Cross, Swasti Road (Lakshmi Road Cross), Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. Respondent No.4 is the owner of the adjacent property bearing No.8/2. The appellants commenced construction of a building after obtaining sanction of the building plan from respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 submitted a representation alleging that the appellants had violated the sanctioned plan. When respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to take action, W.P. No.4972/2012 was filed before this Court seeking a direction to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike , [BBMP] to initiate action for removal of the alleged illegal construction. The violation alleged pertained to the construction of additional floors beyond the sanctioned plan. This Court, while disposing of W.P. No.4972/2012, directed the BBMP to initiate action for removal of the unauthorized construction. In compliance, the BBMP issued a notice under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 , KMC Act , calling upon the appellants to remove the illegal construction. Thereafter, a final order of demolition came to be passed. 2.1 The appellants preferred Appeal No.1344/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). As the appellants continued the construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.3876/2013 before this Court seeking directions to the BBMP to take appropriate action. This Court directed the KAT to dispose of the pending appeal within a period of two months. The KAT, by its order dated 04.03.2014, set aside the order confirming demolition and remitted the matter to the BBMP for fresh consideration. After remand, a notice under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act, was issued, and an order of demolition dated 21.02.2014 came to be passed. 2.2 The said orders were challenged by the appellants before the KAT in Appeal No.285/2014, wherein an order of status quo was granted. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.29795/2014 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, during the pendency of the writ petition, issued a series of directions, including a direction for inspection and submission of a report regarding the alleged violations. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.29795/2014 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, during the pendency of the writ petition, issued a series of directions, including a direction for inspection and submission of a report regarding the alleged violations. 2.3 Upon consideration of the reports submitted by the BBMP, the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the violation of the sanctioned plan by the appellants stood established. The learned Single Judge also took note of the pendency of Appeal No.285/2014 before the KAT. It was further held that the appellants had deviated from the sanctioned plan by failing to leave the required setbacks and by constructing the third and fourth floors without sanction. Under the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan within one month and to report compliance to respondent Nos.1 to 3, who were directed to verify whether the construction was brought in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The learned Single Judge further directed the BBMP to demolish the building in the event the deviations were not rectified. While issuing the aforesaid directions, the learned Single Judge also took note of the order of status quo passed by the KAT, which was in operation. 3. Sri Paras Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that respondent No.4 had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition before this Court, in which the impugned directions came to be issued. It is contended that, as the petitioner lacked locus standi, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition are not sustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants, being aggrieved, have preferred Appeal No.285/2014 before the KAT, wherein an order of status quo was granted. When the appeal against the proceedings initiated by the BBMP on the same cause of action is pending consideration, the writ petition at the instance of respondent No.4 was not maintainable. 3.1 It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has overlooked the pendency of the proceedings before the KAT. It is contended that, as a consequence of the impugned order, the pending appeal before the KAT has been rendered infructuous, thereby depriving the appellants of their statutory right of appeal under the provisions of the KMC Act. It is contended that, as a consequence of the impugned order, the pending appeal before the KAT has been rendered infructuous, thereby depriving the appellants of their statutory right of appeal under the provisions of the KMC Act. 3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the deviation, if any, is capable of being considered for regularization. It is contended that the question as to whether the deviation is permissible, and the extent thereof, are matters of fact to be determined by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the deviation, if any, falls within the permissible limits for regularization, and therefore, the direction in the impugned order directing demolition and removal of the alleged excess construction is unsustainable in law. 4. Per contra, Sri B. S. Satyanand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the sanctioned plan was approved only for the ground and first floors, whereas the appellants have unauthorisedly constructed the third and fourth floors. It is submitted that, during the course of enquiry and inspection, the appellants themselves admitted the deviations. As the fact of deviation is not in dispute, the writ petition was maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petition was rightly entertained by the learned Single Judge, as sufficient material was available on record to establish the said deviations. 5. Sri P. D. Surana, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submits that respondent No.4 is the owner of the adjacent property and that the deviations from the sanctioned plan have adversely affected the rights of respondent No.4. Hence, respondent No.4 has the requisite locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that, as the deviations in respect of setbacks and construction of additional floors have been admitted by the appellants, there was no necessity for any further fact-finding by the Tribunal in the pending appeal. It is therefore contended that the writ petition was rightly entertained by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel further submits that the existence and extent of deviation are not in dispute and stand admitted. It is further submitted that the deviations found are beyond the permissible limits for regularization, and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to seek such regularization. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the existence and extent of deviation are not in dispute and stand admitted. It is further submitted that the deviations found are beyond the permissible limits for regularization, and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to seek such regularization. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants interference by this Court?” The answer to the above point, in our considered view, is in the affirmative, for the following reasons. 7. Respondent No.4 filed a complaint alleging that the appellants had constructed the building in violation of the sanctioned plan. As the authorities failed to take action, a writ petition came to be filed and directions were issued by this Court, pursuant to which the BBMP initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the KMC Act. The said proceedings culminated in an order directing demolition of the construction put up in excess of the sanctioned plan. The appellants questioned the said order before the KAT in Appeal No.1344/2012. The Tribunal, while entertaining the appeal, set aside the order of demolition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the order of remand, the BBMP once again issued notice under Section 321 of the Act and passed a fresh order of demolition. The said order was again challenged by the appellants before the Tribunal in Appeal No.285/2014, wherein an order of status quo was granted. 7.1 When the authorities had already initiated proceedings under the provisions of the KMC Act on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No.4, and when the matter was sub judice before the Tribunal, it was not open to respondent No.4 to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, the Tribunal, after considering the matter, had directed that status quo be maintained. When the authorities had acted in accordance with law and passed an order of demolition, and such order was under challenge before the Tribunal with an interim order of status quo in force, it was always open to respondent No.4 to participate in those proceedings and, if aggrieved, to seek vacating of the interim order or to challenge the same in accordance with law. Instead, respondent No. 4 chose to file a separate writ petition before this Court. Instead, respondent No. 4 chose to file a separate writ petition before this Court. The writ petitioner has not made out any exceptional ground to maintain writ petition when statutory appeal was pending. 7.2 The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, issued a series of directions and recorded findings regarding deviation from the sanctioned plan. Whether the construction was put up in deviation of the sanctioned plan or in excess of the sanctioned floors is, however, a pure question of fact which was required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, in entertaining the writ petition and recording findings on merits, committed an error in exercising jurisdiction over a matter pending before the statutory Appellate Authority. The findings recorded in the impugned order have the effect of frustrating the pending appeal before the Tribunal and depriving the appellants of their statutory right of appeal under the KMC Act. 7.3 The appellants, being aggrieved by the order of demolition passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in which an order of status quo is granted. Respondent No. 4 has instituted a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce the order of demolition. 7.4 It is a well-settled position of law that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the writ petition may be entertained only in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. In the present case, none of the aforesaid exceptions are attracted. In fact, the representation submitted by Respondent No. 4 has been duly considered, and an order of demolition has been passed. However, the said order could not be executed in view of the interim order of status quo operating pursuant to the directions issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the present case, none of the aforesaid exceptions are attracted. In fact, the representation submitted by Respondent No. 4 has been duly considered, and an order of demolition has been passed. However, the said order could not be executed in view of the interim order of status quo operating pursuant to the directions issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 7.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others , (2013) 5 SCC 336 has held that once the Corporation has passed an order of demolition of an illegal construction by the Mayor-in-Council, a further direction to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders after hearing the owner is impermissible when the violation of the sanctioned plan stands established. 7.6 In the present case, the competent authority, while exercising powers under Section 321 of the KMC Act, has quantified the extent of deviation. The said quantification has been disputed by the appellants by availing the statutory remedy of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal is the fact-finding authority. 7.7 Further, the provisions of the KMC Act permit regularization of deviations up to specified extent. The determination of extent of deviation and whether the deviation falls within such permissible limits necessarily requires factual adjudication. Upon completion of the fact-finding exercise by the Tribunal, the strict view regarding enforcement of deviations, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee (supra), can thereafter be implemented. 8. The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to direct dismantling of the alleged illegal construction and to restrain the appellants from occupying the building. The petition was presented on 25.06.2014. By that date, however, the respondent-authorities had already acted upon the complaint and issued an order of demolition under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the KAT in Appeal No.285/2014, in which an order of status quo was granted. When the competent authority had already exercised its power under Section 321 of the KMC Act and passed an order of demolition, the prayer in the writ petition seeking a mandamus to initiate such action was premature. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the KAT in Appeal No.285/2014, in which an order of status quo was granted. When the competent authority had already exercised its power under Section 321 of the KMC Act and passed an order of demolition, the prayer in the writ petition seeking a mandamus to initiate such action was premature. The learned Single Judge, despite noticing the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal and the subsisting order of status quo, proceeded to examine the factual aspects relating to the alleged deviations and issued a series of directions, including the impugned direction to demolish or remove the unauthorised construction. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the statutory appeal was pending consideration before the competent Appellate Authority, the writ petition itself was premature. Consequently, the impugned directions issued therein are unsustainable in law and travel beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ petition. 9. The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, failed to take note of the action already initiated by the BBMP, which was sub judice before the KAT. The learned Single Judge further proceeded on the premise as if the respondent-authorities had not taken any action in respect of the alleged violations by the appellants. 10. In view of the above findings, the other contentions, including those relating to the percentage of deviation and the scope of regularization, are kept open. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, we find merit in the writ appeal and proceed to pass the following: Order (i) The writ appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 19.11.2014 in W.P. No.29795/2014 is set aside. (iii) The KAT shall decide the pending Appeal No.285/2014 without being influenced by the findings/observations made in the impugned order. (iv) All contentions of the parties are left open. Any observations made in this order are for disposal of this appeal only. (v) No orders as to costs.