The petitioner herein applied for permission to construct the residential house on his own plot of land to the Sibsagar Development Authority. The Chairman of the Sibsagar Development Authority vide his letter dated 30.10.94 did not give permission for construction. That is Annexure 1 to the writ application. The ground for which the permission was refused is as follows : “The area in which you submit proposal for construction of the residential house is within the “open space' of the scheme of Development. Besides the Dag No. 60 is inside the Garh. No permission can be granted accordingly.” It may be stated herein that earlier on 9.2.85 a notification was issued by the Union of India under Ancient Monuments and Archaelogical Sites and Remains Rules, 1959. In exercise of the power conferred by Rule 32 of the aforesaid rules, the Central Government declared the said area to be prohibited areas for the purpose of construction because of the existence of Talatal Ghar (Kareng Ghar). Section 19 of the Act, 1958 provides as follows : “19. Restrictions on enjoyment of property rights in protected areas : (1) No person, including the owner or occupier of a protected area, shall construct ,in\ building within the protected area or carry on any mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature in such area, or utilise such area or any part thereof in any other manner without the permission of the Central Government Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of any such area or part thereof for purposes of cultivation if such cultivation does not involve the digging of not more than one foot of soil from the surface. (2) The Central Government may, by order, direct that any building constructed by any person within a protected area in contravention of the provisions of sub­section (1) shall be removed within a specified period and, if the person refuses or fails to comply with the order, the Collector may cause the building to be removed and the person shall be liable to pay the cost of such removal.” Rule 10 provides for permission for construction. Rule 10 is quoted below : “ 10. Permission required for construction etc. Rule 10 is quoted below : “ 10. Permission required for construction etc. (1) No person shall undertake any construction or mining operation with a protected area except under and in accordance with a permission granted in this behalf by the Central Government. (2) Every application for permission under sub-rule (1) shall be made to. the Central Government in Form I at least three months before the date of commencement of the construction or operation.” 2. The petitioner herein applied to the authority on 9.2.95 for permission for construction. That is Annexure 3 to the writ application. This application was filed vide Rule 34 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 34 provides for application for licence and Rule 35 provides for grant or refusal of licence. They are quoted below : “34. Application for licence- Every person intending to undertake any mining operation or any construction in a regulated area shall apply to the Director General in Form VI at least three months before the date of commencement of such operation or construction. 35. Grant or refusal of licence. - (1) On receipt of an application under Rule 34, the Director General may grant a licence or, if he is satisfied that the licence asked for should not be granted, may for reasons to be recorded, refuse to grant a licence. (2) Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) shall be in Form VIII and be subject to the following conditions, namely- (a) the licence shall not be transferable: (b) it shall be valid for the period specified therein; and (c) any other condition relating to the manner of carrying out the mining operation or the construction which the Director General may specify in the licence for ensuring the safety and appearance of, and the maintenance of the approach and access to, the protected monument.” Though this application was filed on 9.2.95 no decision has been taken by the authority as yet. Hence this civil rule was filed on 26.8.95. The respondent Nos.l and 2 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The only defence which is taken with regard to this application is at paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Hence this civil rule was filed on 26.8.95. The respondent Nos.l and 2 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The only defence which is taken with regard to this application is at paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition. That is quoted below : “That as regards the statements made in para 5 of the writ petition I say that the application for granting permission was turned down by the Sibsagar Development Authority vide their letter No.DAS/BLD/20 and 21/295/89/2023 dated 31.10.1994, by giving specific reasons as per the provisions of the Acts. After this the application to grant permission was directly sent to the respondent No.2 i.e. the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi without consulting the local Sub-Circle Office at sibsagar or the Circle Office at Guwahati. This type of cases i.e. cases relating to the permission of building activities are decided, as per the provisions with the Rule 34 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, by the respondent No.2 i.e. Director General, Archaeological Survey of India on the basis of the report from the local office of the Archaeological Survey of India. As, in this case, the applicants reached to the respondent No.2 without the report/remarks of the local office, he acted on the basis of the actions taken by the Sibsagar Development Authority and decided the case in accordance to the actions taken by the later i.e. Sibsagar Development Council.” But this stand has been disclosed only in the affidavit-in-opposition. Earlier to it, no communication was made to the petitioner, though it was pending before the authority for a long time. The only defence has been taken on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the residence of the petitioner and the site for construction is situated at a distance of 270 meters from the boundary of Kareng Ghar. 3. This being the factual position, I direct the authority to consider the application of the petitioner for permission to construct the building within a period of six (6) weeks from today, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to make the construction according to the scheme submitted by him. 4. This disposes of the writ application. I have heard Shri DC Mahanta, counsel forthe petitioner and Shri RP Kakati, CGSC for the respondents. I make no order as to costs.