L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 24399 of 2002, is the owner and resident of the premises bearing No. 29-8-42, Chiluku Durgaiah street Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. He seeks a writ of mandamus against the Municipal corporation, Vijayawada i. e. , the first respondent herein, directing it not to permit the 2nd respondent namely, to open psychiatric Nursing Home (for short nursing Home) in the neighboring premises 29-8-41/1 in the same street. According to him, the second respondent obtained a permission to construct residential premises, and in deviation of the same, he has constructed first and second floors, and thereafter established a Nursing home, in contravention of the provisions of the hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to act ), as extended to vijayawada Municipal Corporation, and of the Mental Health Act 1987 and the rules made there under.

( 2 ) THE second respondent was issued as many as three notices by the first respondent raising objections to the deviations made while constructing the said premises. He filed W. P. No. 19068 of 2002 challenging the final notice dated 24-7-2002 issued under section 636 of the Act.

( 3 ) SINCE these two writ petitions are inter related, between the same parties and in respect of the same premises, the learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments touching oh all the aspects. The respective parties have also filed counter affidavits. The parties are referred to, as arrayed in W. P. No. 24399 of 2002.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.

( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent had established a nursing Home in a residential premises constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan and contrary to the provisions of the mental Health Act.

( 6 ) THE second respondent, on the other hand submits that the nursing home has been established duly obtaining the licence under the Mental Health Act and rules made thereunder and the complaint of the petitioner is not bona fide. He further contends that the building was constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan but with minor deviations and he undertakes to pay the compounding fee, if permissible, and to remove the objectionable portion if it becomes inevitable.

( 7 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is two fold. The first is that the construction undertaken by the 2nd respondent in the immediate neighbourhood is in contravention of the sanctioned plan. In fact the subject matter of the Writ Petition no. 19068 of 2002 is exclusively on this aspect. A perusal of the notice issued under section 636 of the Act to (sic. by) the first respondent discloses that the petitioner has deviated in the matter of leaving open spaces on all the four sides. The notices disclose the nature and extent of deviations. The 2nd respondent does not dispute this. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent has deviated in the matter of internal partitions also.

( 8 ) ONCE the second respondent admits that there are deviations in the matter of construction of the said premises, two courses are open to the first respondent. If the deviations are major in nature and cause hardship to the public in general, or to the neighbours in particular, the question of permitting such deviations to remain does not arise even if the owner of the premises is prepared to pay any compounding fee. However, if such deviations are trivial and do not cause hardship to the public or neighbours, occasions are not lacking, when the violators are let off by levying compound fee. A full bench of this Court in 3 ACES v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has taken such a view. However, this question needs to be decided by the concerned local authority and not by this Court. For this purpose the 2nd respondent has to make an application, which in turn shall be considered by the first respondent, taking relevant factors into account. It is only when the compoundin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document