JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned notice bearing No.BLG/2018-19/AMSR/136 dated 26.10.2018 at Annexure-E and notice bearing No.BLG/32/02/18-2018-19-M/9149 dated 30.11.2018 /04.12.2018 at Annexuer-F, by which the respondents No.1 and 2 directed the petitioner to remove such unauthorized construction within seven days in exercise of their power under Rule 38 (1) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he is the owner of property measuring 21.9 feet x 25 feet of CTS No.4103/B situated at Bailhongal. It is stated that the said property was purchased by the father of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 15.07.1983. In the year 2003, the petitioner states that he applied to the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal for building license and accordingly, the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal issued building license order on 05.08.2003 as per Annexure-C. It is stated that as per Annexure-C, the petitioner constructed the building on the above stated plot. As the petitioner intended to put up further construction on the above stated plot, he made an application to the respondents as per Annexure-D on 23.06.2018. The respondents under the impugned notices dated 26.10.2018 and 30.11.2018/04.12.2018 at Annexures-E and F in exercise of their power under Rule 38(1) of the Rules directed the petitioner to remove such unauthorized building construction within seven days stating that the plot of the petitioner is situated within the prohibited area of Centrally Protected Monument. Challenging those notices, the petitioner is before this Court in these writ petitions. 3. This Court by order dated 22.02.2019 directed the learned counsel, Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi to take notice on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner impleaded Union of India as respondent No.3. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sangram S Kulkarni and the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi. Perused the writ petitions papers. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of property bearing CTS No.4103/B measuring 21.9 feet x 25 feet situated at Bailhongal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sangram S Kulkarni and the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi. Perused the writ petitions papers. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of property bearing CTS No.4103/B measuring 21.9 feet x 25 feet situated at Bailhongal. The petitioner had constructed the building on the said plot by taking permission from the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal as per Annexure-C. When the petitioner intended to put up further construction, he made an application as per Annexure-D dated 23.06.2018 to the respondents. The respondents without enquiry, under Annexures-E and F have come to the conclusion that the property of the petitioner falls within 100 metres of the declared protected monument and directed the petitioner to remove such unauthorized building construction within seven days in exercise of their power under Rule 38(1) of the Rules. 6. The learned counsel invites attention of this Court to Section 20-A of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'). Section 20-A of the Act provides for declaration of prohibited area and restrictions for carrying out public work or other works in prohibited area. Section 20-C of the Act provides for making application for repair or renovation of the existing building within the prohibited area, or construction or re-construction or repair or renovation in regulated area. He submits that as per Section 20-C of the Act, the petitioner had made application to the respondents as per Annexure-D. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his plot would not fall within 100 metres of the protected monument. Further, it is submitted that Section 20-A of the Act provides for declaration of prohibited area and carrying out public work or other works in prohibited area. Sub-section (1) of Section 20-A of the Act prescribes distance of 100 metres limit in all directions from the protected area or monument as the prohibited area. Proviso to the above said Sub-section provides for extending the distance for limiting the prohibited or monument area. Sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of the Act states that no person other than archaeological officer shall carry out construction in any prohibited area. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that his plot is 130 metres away from the protected monument. Sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of the Act states that no person other than archaeological officer shall carry out construction in any prohibited area. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that his plot is 130 metres away from the protected monument. As such, the respondents could not have directed him to remove such construction. Further, it is his submission that the Authorities have also not pointed out illegal construction or unauthorized construction which is to be removed. The learned counsel further submits that the action is taken by the respondents in exercise of power under Rule 38(1) of the Rules. He submits that under Rule 38(1) of the Rules, the Central Government is empowered to take action and no delegation is made permitting the respondents to exercise power under the Rules. He also invites attention of this Court to definition of competent authority as per Section 2(db) of the Act. The respondents being lower authority than the competent authority defined under Section 2(db) of the Act, they had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petitions. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi on instruction fairly submits that no notification is issued delegating the powers under Rule 38(1) of the Rules. He invites attention of this Court to Section 29 of the Act, which provides for delegation of powers. No such notification delegating the power to be exercised under Rule 38 of the Rules is made. But, he brings to the notice of this Court that for the purpose of Section 20-C of the Act, notification dated 29.10.2010 is issued by the Ministry of Culture delegating the powers to the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, Belagavi for the area under the jurisdiction of Dharwad Circle of ASI i.e. Archaeological Survey of India. Thus, he prays for passing appropriate orders in these writ petitions. 9. It is not in dispute that two inscription of Ratta chieftains in the old temple of Shiva at Bailhongal is declared as protected monument under Section 20-A of the Act. The petitioner claims to be the owner of CTS No.4103/B measuring 21.9 feet x 25 feet at Bailhongal. Annexure-C dated 5.8.2003 would disclose that the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal granted building license to the petitioner for construction over the plot in question. The petitioner claims to be the owner of CTS No.4103/B measuring 21.9 feet x 25 feet at Bailhongal. Annexure-C dated 5.8.2003 would disclose that the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal granted building license to the petitioner for construction over the plot in question. Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that in the year 2003 the petitioner has constructed building over the plot in question. As he intended to put up further construction, as per Annexure-D he made an application under Section 20-C of the Act to the respondents. The respondents in exercise of power under Rule 38(1) of the Rules, directed the petitioner to remove such unauthorized building construction within seven days, failing which, it stated that the Central Government shall in exercise of its powers under Subrule (2) of Rule 38 of the Rules, cause the unauthorized building/construction removed at petitioner's cost and expenses. 10. The Act has been enacted with an object to provide for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects. The Act defines ancient monument under Section 2(a); Section 2(db) defines competent authority; Section 2(dc) defines construction; Section 2(ha) defines prohibited area, which means any area specified or declared to be a prohibited area under Section 20-A; Section 2(i) defines protected area, which means any archeological site and remains which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act; Section 2(j) defines protected monument; Section 4 empowers the Central Government to declare ancient monument, etc., to be of national importance; under Section 5, the Director-General with the sanction of the Central Government could acquire rights in a protected monument; Section 19 restricts enjoyment of property rights in protected areas; Section 20-A to Section 20-Q were inserted by Act 10 of 2010 of the Parliament with retrospective effect from 16.06.1992. Section 20-A provides for declaration of prohibited area and carrying out public work or other works in prohibited area. Every area, beginning at the limit of the protected area and extending to a distance of 100 metres in all directions shall be the prohibited area in respect of such protected area or protected monument. The Central Government by notification specify an area more than 100 metres to be the prohibited area. Every area, beginning at the limit of the protected area and extending to a distance of 100 metres in all directions shall be the prohibited area in respect of such protected area or protected monument. The Central Government by notification specify an area more than 100 metres to be the prohibited area. Sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of the Act states that no person, other than an archeological officer, shall carry out any construction in any prohibited area. Section 20-B of the Act provides for declaration of regulated area in respect of every protected monument. Section 20-C of the Act provides for making an application for repair or renovation in prohibited area, or construction or re-construction or repair or renovation in regulated area. Section 20-D of the Act provides for grant of permission under Section 20-C of the Act by competent authority within regulated area. It specifies that every application for grant of permission under Section 20-C of the Act shall be made to the competent authority in such manner as may be prescribed. As stated above, competent authority is defined under Section 2(db) of the Act, which reads as follows: "2(db). competent authority" means an officer not below the rank of Director of archaeology or Commissioner of archaeology of the Central or State Government or equivalent rank, specified, by notification in the Official Gazette, as the competent authority by the Central Government to perform functions under this Act: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify different competent authorities for the purpose of sections 20C, 20D and 20E." 11. A reading of the above definition makes it clear that the competent authority means an officer not below the rank of Director of archaeology or Commissioner of Archaeology of the Central or State Government or equivalent rank, specified, by notification in the Official Gazette. Proviso provides to specify different competent authorities for the purpose of Sections 20-C, 20-D and 20-E of the Act, by notification by the Central Government. The respondent authorities who have issued Annexures-E and F are Officers below the rank of Director of archaeology or Commissioner of archaeology. Memo dated 10.07.2020 is filed enclosing notification dated 29.10.2010 which notifies competent authority under Section 2(db) of the Act, for the purpose of Section 20-C of the Act. The respondent authorities who have issued Annexures-E and F are Officers below the rank of Director of archaeology or Commissioner of archaeology. Memo dated 10.07.2020 is filed enclosing notification dated 29.10.2010 which notifies competent authority under Section 2(db) of the Act, for the purpose of Section 20-C of the Act. The Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, Belagavi has been declared as competent authority under notification dated 29.10.2010 by the Ministry of Union of India for the purpose of Section 20-C and 20-D of the Act. Therefore, the competent authority for the purpose of granting permission for construction or renovation or reconstruction in the prohibited area would be Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, Belagavi. 12. Rule 38 of the Rules reads as follows: "38. Removal of unauthorised buildings. (1) The Central Government may, by order, direct the owner or occupier of an authorised building in a prohibited area or in a regulated area or of a building or part thereof which has been constructed in contravention of any of the conditions of a licence granted under rule 35 to remove such building or part thereof within a period specified in that order. (2) If the owner or occupier refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-rule (1), the Central Government may direct the District Magistrate to cause the building or part thereof to be removed, and the owner or occupier shall be liable to pay the cost of such-removal" 13. A careful reading of the above Rule would indicate that the Central Government may by order direct the owner or occupier of an unauthorized building in a prohibited area or in a regulated area who has constructed building in contravention of any of the conditions of a license, to remove the construction if the construction is in violation of the license granted under Rule 35. Whether Rule 38 of the Rules applies to the petitioner's case or not need not be gone into in these writ petitions. Suffice it to say that the respondents No.1 and 2, who are not competent authorities, had no jurisdiction or competence to issue impugned notices. Moreover, the petitioner also could not have made any application to the respondents No.1 and 2. As per notification dated 29.10.2010, the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, Belagavi would be the competent authority under Section 20-C of the Act. Moreover, the petitioner also could not have made any application to the respondents No.1 and 2. As per notification dated 29.10.2010, the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, Belagavi would be the competent authority under Section 20-C of the Act. As such, notice bearing No.BLG/2018-19/AMSR/136 dated 26.10.2018 at Annexure-E and notice bearing No. BLG/32/02/18-2018-19-M/9149 dated 30.11.2018/04.12.2018 at Annexure-F are without jurisdiction and the same are quashed. 14. The petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application seeking permission to make additional construction on the plot in question to the competent authority. If such an application is made, the competent authority to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 15. With the above, the writ petitions are partly allowed.