Prakash Tatia, J.- Though much has been argued by the learned Counsel for the parties on factual aspect of the matter but brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 filed the suit for injunction before the civil Court seeking relief of injunction against raising of construction by non-petitioner No. 4 for which she sought permission for construction of building from respondent No. 2 Municipal Council, Bikaner. The plot of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are situated on the same road in same line. The petitioner No. 1, in his suit also sought relief against compounding of illegal construction by the Municipal Council, Bikaner which respondent No. 4 is intending to raise. The petitioner placed on record copy of a map (Annexure-1) and alleged that for the entire colony, a scheme was framed and it was provided in the map of the colony that there shall be set-back for each plot. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 4 applied for grant of permission for raising construction under Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (for short "the Act of 1959") upon which permission was granted to respondent No. 4 by the Municipal Council, Bikaner but with restriction of leaving set-back. Respondent No. 4, sought permission to raise construction of one building on two plots. The trial Court since passed the interim order against respondent No. 4 only and has not specifically restrained respondent No. 2 from compounding illegal construction of respondent No. 4, therefore, the respondent No. 2 allowed the application of respondent No. 4 for compounding construction in set-back area by order dated 04.08.2004 despite the fact that the suit against compounding of the construction was pending before the civil Court and the Municipal Council itself was party in the suit.

.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of K. Ravdas Shenoy vs. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 2177, when the Municipal Authorities grants permission to raise a construction on a building which materially affects the right to or enjoyment of the property by person residing in the residential area, the said action can be challenged. It is submitted that the scheme for planned development of the colony is framed for the benefit of the residents of the locality and rights of the residents in the area are invaded by an illegal construction in the locality. It is submitted that the act of nullifying the scheme of the Municipal Authorities can be prevented by issuing a writ against the Municipal Authorities. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner though sought relief of injunction against respondent-Municipal Council as well as the respondent No. 4 by filing the civil suit but since respondent-Municipal Council, Bikaner has compounded the illegal construction of respondent No. 4 during the pendency of the suit and the petitioner could not have challenged that order in the suit, therefore, despite pendency of the suit, the petitioner can pursue the remedy by filing the writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, otherwise, the petitioners suit is likely to be affected adversely because of simple reason that the authorities have passed the order compounding the illegal construction of respondent No. 4 and the trial Court may proceed to rely upon the order of compounding till it is set aside and there may be difficulty for the petitioner to get the appropriate relief even against respondent No. 4 till the order of compounding remains in force. It is also submitted that the alternative remedy is no bar against the exercise of judicial discretion by the High Court but it is a restriction imposed by the Courts themselves, According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where this Court