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. 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 compounding becomes impermissible that the further steps need to be taken for demolition of the offending portion of the building. ( 9 ) SO far as the inner partitions are concerned, they stand on a different footing. Unless they result in structural modification, detrimental to the interests of the neighbours, the liberty of the owner of a building to modify the internal structures cannot be meddled with. ( 9 ) SO far as the inner partitions are concerned, they stand on a different footing. Unless they result in structural modification, detrimental to the interests of the neighbours, the liberty of the owner of a building to modify the internal structures cannot be meddled with. ( 10 ) THE second grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent had established a nursing home, in contravention of the provisions of the Rules framed under the Mental Health Act. According to him, the nursing home, which attracts the provisions of the Mental Health Act, can be established, only after necessary permission is obtained under Rule 16 read with Rule 20. It is contended that such a hospital can be established only in a premises, especially built for that purpose, with the specific approval of the first respondent. A perusal of rule 20 discloses that the nursing homes of this nature can be established only in the area approved by the local authority. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that it is permissible to establish nursing homes in the areas notified for residential purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Psychiatric nursing homes cannot be equated with other ordinary nursing homes and in that view of the matter they cannot be permitted to be established in a residential locality. This contention would have appealed to the court, if only the Mental Health Act or Rules mandated earmarking of any area, exclusively for the purpose of establishment of such category of nursing homes. In the absence of the same, it has to be presumed that this category of nursing homes could be established wherever other kinds of nursing homes could be established. Viewed from that angle, no exception can be taken for establishment of psychiatric nursing home in an area earmarked for residential purposes. 11. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is only in a building specially approved by the local authority that such a nursing home can be located. Condition (B) incorporated in Rule 20 insists that a nursing home of this category is to be located in a "building" constructed with the approval of the local authority. The condition does not stipulate that the approval in respect of a building shall be exclusively for the purpose of establishing a psychiatric nursing home. 12. Condition (B) incorporated in Rule 20 insists that a nursing home of this category is to be located in a "building" constructed with the approval of the local authority. The condition does not stipulate that the approval in respect of a building shall be exclusively for the purpose of establishing a psychiatric nursing home. 12. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent was granted a licence under the mental Health Act to run the nursing home. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the licence was in respect of a nursing home located in Govindarajulu street, whereas the second respondent established it at Chiluki Durgaiah street. In the licence, no specific premises as such is mentioned. From a perusal of the sketch furnished by the parties, it is evident that these two streets are abutting each other. In the absence of reference to a particular building in the street, the location of the hospital in the immediate neighbourhood cannot be said to be a major or material deviation. Be that as it may, the licence clearly stipulates that it is subject to the provisions of the Mental Health Act and rules made there under. That being the case, if there are any deviations or non-compliances on the part of the 2nd respondent, it shall be open to the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the licencing authority, namely, the Director of Medical Education. In such an event, necessary action can be taken after due verification. In that view of the matter, w. P. Nos. 24399 of 02 and 19068 of 2002 are disposed of directing that (A) it shall be open to the 2nd respondent (in W. P. No. 24399 of 2002) to submit a representation to the first respondent within two weeks from today, as regards the deviations pointed out in the notices issued to him under Section 636 of the Act. On receiving such representation, the first respondent shall issue. On receiving such representation, the first respondent shall issue. notice to the petitioner and other affected neighbours and decide as to whether it is permissible and feasible to condone the deviations, either in their entirety or in part, by levying any compound fee, within two weeks thereafter; (B) If the first respondent passes an order and communicates to the petitioner to the effect that the deviations, as a whole or in part, are to be removed, the petitioner shall be under obligation to comply with the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of such communication; (C) It shall open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the director of Medical Education as regards the alleged deviations and non-compliance on the part of the 2nd respondent in the matter of establishment and running of psychiatric nursing home. On receipt of such representation, the licencing authority shall pass appropriate orders within three weeks thereafter and communicate it to the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.