Judgment : K. Abraham Mathew J. 1. The answer to the question that arises for consideration in this appeal depends on the interpretation of Section 2(dc) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. 2. Article 49 of the Constitution of India makes it the obligation of the State “ to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.” 3. Article 51A of the Constitution also is relevant. This provision has made it is the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich cultural heritage of our composite culture. 4. It is in conformity with the above constitutional provisions the Parliament enacted the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains(Amendment and Validation) Act 2010 by which the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 has been amended. By the amendments various provisions in the Ordinance which preceded the Amendment Act have been strengthened and penal provisions have been made. 5. While interpreting the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) the above constitutional obligation and duty should be borne in mind. 6. Under Section 20A of the Act every area beginning at the limit of the protected area or the protected monument, as the case may be, and extending to a distance of one hundred metres in all directions is a prohibited area in respect of such protected area or protected monument. Sub section (2) of the Section also is relevant: “Save as otherwise provided in Section 20C, no person other than an archaeological officer shall carry out any construction in any prohibited area”. Section 20C enables the owner of a building or structure which existed in a prohibited area before the 16th day of June, 1992 to submit an application to carryout any repair or renovation of such building or structure. 7. Thus there is a total prohibition for making any new constructions in the prohibited area; but repairs in an existing construction may be carried out with the permission of the competent authority concerned. 8. It is not in dispute that Tellicherry Fort is a protected monument under the Act. 7. Thus there is a total prohibition for making any new constructions in the prohibited area; but repairs in an existing construction may be carried out with the permission of the competent authority concerned. 8. It is not in dispute that Tellicherry Fort is a protected monument under the Act. The first respondent is an owner of a three storied building situated in the prohibited area in respect of the Fort, its location being within 100 metres from the Fort. On the ground that the RCC roof of his building leaks and it cannot otherwise be prevented he applied for permission of the local body to put up aluminum roof (truss work) over the RCC slab. Ext P1 is a copy of the permit granted by the local body. On realizing that there are restrictions in the Act, he submitted Ext P2 application to the third respondent, Superintending Archaeologist of the Archaeological Survey of India, for permission to put up aluminum roof. On being told that his application would be forwarded to the first appellant, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, he made Ext P3 representation to him to grant the permission sought for. Meanwhile, the 4th appellant, Senior Conservation Assistant of the Archaeological Survey of India, issued Ext P4 stop memo to him as he was about to start the work. But no order was passed on his application even after the issuance of the stop memo. He filed the writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing Ext P4 stop memo and for a mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the appellants to grant the permission sought for. He also made a prayer for the alternative relief of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate orders directing appellants 1 to 4 to take positive actions on Ext P2 and Ext P3 applications submitted by him. The learned Single Judge took the view that the work proposed to be done by the first respondent does not amount to 'construction' as defined in Section 2(dc) of the Act and directed the 5th appellant, Director of Archeology, to pass orders on the applications filed by the first respondent and communicate it to the 2nd respondent Municipality as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 9. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that putting up of aluminum roof over the RCC slab amounts to construction as defined in Section 2(dc) of the Act which is totally prohibited by Section 20C. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the first respondent writ petitioner submits that it only amounts to repairs which is not totally prohibited and the authority concerned has the power to grant permission to do it. 10. Section 2(dc) of the Act defines construction as follows: 2(dc) “construction” means any erection of a structure or a building, including any addition or extension thereto either vertically or horizontally, but does not include any reconstruction, repair and renovation of an existing structure or building, or, construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains and drainage works and of public latrines, urinals and similar conveniences, or, the construction and maintenance of works meant for providing supply of water for public, or, the construction or maintenance, extension, management for supply and distribution of electricity to the public or provision for similar facilities for public. It is clear from the definition that not only erection of a building, but of any structure also is construction. 11. Permanent and temporary are relative terms. Whether a work is one or the other depends upon the purpose, the period during which the structure is intended to last, the materials used for it and the manner of its construction. 12. The building of the first respondent has three stories. Its RCC slab has an area of 586.69 Sq.metres, which is seen from Ext P1 permit issued by the local authority. Putting up a truss over the R.C.C.slab of the building of the first respondent appears to be/ intended to be a permanent solution for the problem. Annexure-A1 in the Writ Appeal(two sheets) is a copy of the plan of the proposed work as per which aluminum roofing sheets will be placed on a structure made of GI posts and GI pipes. The structure is to be secured by bolts and nuts fitted to the columns of the RCC roof. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the proposed work is only of a temporary nature. 13. Section 2(m) of the Act defines repair: “Repair and Renovation means alterations to a preexisting structure or building, but shall not include construction or reconstruction”. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the proposed work is only of a temporary nature. 13. Section 2(m) of the Act defines repair: “Repair and Renovation means alterations to a preexisting structure or building, but shall not include construction or reconstruction”. So once the work attracts the definition of construction the court need not even consider whether it amounts to repair. That apart, repair is alteration to a structure or building which already exists. In the case on hand, no alteration will be done to the existing building; a new structure will be added to it. In any view of the matter, the proposed work cannot be said to be a repair. 14. Assuming that the aluminum roof proposed to be put up by the first respondent is of a temporary nature, we shall examine whether it amounts to construction as defined in Section 2(dc). Section 20A of the Act does not make any distinction between temporary and permanent structures. Erection of every structure, temporary or permanent, is prohibited. The argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent has no merits. 15. It is true that by Ext P4 letter dated 20.5.2010, the 4th appellant informed the first respondent: “as per the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act and its Rules (Amendment and Validation Act 2010) to initiate any sort of construction or repair work licence from the Archaeological Survey of India is required. So it is directed that the proposed work may please be stopped till the licence is issued by the competent authority. Form No.VII is also attached herewith for further action”. The 4th appellant might have written so because he did not know the nature of the work the first respondent proposed to do. That apart, the 4th appellant cannot ignore the provisions in the Act and issue a lience to do an act which is prohibited by the Act. 16. For the reasons stated above, it is difficult to agree with the learned Single Judge that the work proposed to be done by the first respondent is not a prohibited act. The learned Single Judge went wrong in directing the 5th appellant to pass orders on the applications filed by the first respondent and to communicate it to the 2nd respondent Municipality as if he is entitled to the permission sought for. The learned Single Judge went wrong in directing the 5th appellant to pass orders on the applications filed by the first respondent and to communicate it to the 2nd respondent Municipality as if he is entitled to the permission sought for. The writ appeal is only to be allowed. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment in the Writ Petition is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed.