Judgment : TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. This is a writ petition filed by Katchal Shopkeepers Association, Kapanga, Katchal Island, Nicobar District represented through its members Shri V. Rajendran, residing at Middle Point, Port Blair stating that petitioner nos. 1 to 14 who used to run various business at Katchal Island had permanent residence thereon but sustained heavy loss in the tsunami which hit these islands on 26th December, 2004. It is further case of the petitioner association that in order to assess the actual damage sustained by the shopkeepers and businessmen of that area, a survey team was appointed by S.R.O, Katchal vide Order No. 177 dated 3rd April, 2005 and after conducting necessary inquiry and spot verification, the survey team submitted a report of damages sustained by the various shopkeepers and businessmen of that locality including the present petitioner and recommended for compensation vide report dated 9th June, 2005 (Annexure P-3). Though, a team of Administration assessed the damages and recommended compensation vide Annexure P-3 but the Administration only gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the petitioners ignoring the said report dated 9th June, 2005 prepared by their own agency. Several representations were made by the writ petitioner to the respondent authorities for payment of proper compensation for the loss sustained by them, but no further action was taken from the side of the respondents. The petitioner Association was compelled to file a writ petition being W.P.No. 074 of 2008 seeking compensation in terms of assessment prepared by the said assessment team. This court by an order dated 13th March, 2009 disposed of the writ petition directing the Chief Secretary or any other officers to be nominated by him to consider the said representation. The respondent no.3 namely the Relief Commissioner, A&N Administration, Port Blair without appreciating the case of the writ petitioner in its true and proper perspective passed the impugned order dated 10th June, 2009 (Annexure P-14). The writ petitioner claimed for damages in terms of report dated 9th June, 2005 of the survey team but the respondent no.3 have rejected the said claim by the impugned order dated 10th June, 2009. The writ petitioner claimed for damages in terms of report dated 9th June, 2005 of the survey team but the respondent no.3 have rejected the said claim by the impugned order dated 10th June, 2009. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 10th June, 2009 passed by the respondent no.3 and a further direction to the respondents to pay the compensation to the members of the petitioner Association as per assessment report dated 9th June, 2005 (Annexure P-3) and other consequential reliefs. The respondents have filed affidavit in opposition alleging inter-alia that Katchal Shopkeeper Association being a unregistered association had no right to file a writ either on his own behalf or on behalf of his members. It is further submitted that in the tsunami held on 26th December, 2004, there was huge damage of both government and private properties through out the islands but particularly in southern group of Andaman including Katchal area. Immediately after tsunami, affected persons were given Rs. 2000/- as interim relief and they were given proper shelter and food. A team of officers deputed to Katchal to assess the damages caused to lives and properties of general public in Tsunami. The Katchal Island is a tribal reserved area and except government building, no non-tribal had any landed property in the tribal area. Non-tribals were also not eligible to acquire any landed property in tribal area either for residential purposes, or for shops under the provisions of A&N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and Rules framed thereunder and also under the provisions of A&N Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 and Rules framed thereunder. The nontribals including the petitioners had no land in Katchal Island being tribal area and they are also not permitted to carry out any business inside tribal reserved area. There is no record showing that the petitioners were permitted to start any shop or business in Katchal Island which was reserved as tribal area. However, the non-tribals including the petitioners were allegedly given permission by the tribals of Katchal Island to run petty business. The petitioner and other non-tribals running petty business in that area had no document to show that how much damage they sustained by Tsunami. However, the non-tribals including the petitioners were allegedly given permission by the tribals of Katchal Island to run petty business. The petitioner and other non-tribals running petty business in that area had no document to show that how much damage they sustained by Tsunami. The officers of survey team were deputed to assess the damages to shops and buildings and they assessed the damages as per verbal submission of local persons including the members of the petitioner Association. Just after tsunami, the respondent authorities provided immediate financial assistance to the families affected by tsunami and the ex-gratia relief as per CRF and NCCF norms as approved by the Govt. of India and fixed the quantum of relief in cash payment for various types of damages sustained by the residents including small business enterprises of tsunami affected areas including Katchal Island. As per the CRF and NCCF norms, the small business enterprises run by the shopkeepers in tsunami affected areas were eligible for payment of Rs. 10,000/-each as ex-gratia relief. The shopkeeper of Katchal including the members of said association were also paid Rs. 10,000/- each as ex-gratia relief as per CRF and NCCF norms. In terms of direction dated 13th March, 2009 issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 074 of 2008, the respondent no.3, under direction of the Chief Secretary, disposed of the representati of the members of the writ petitioner Association. The Relief Commissioner did not find any merit in the claim of the writ petitioner and accordingly the same was dismissed. The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10th June 2009 passed by respondent no.3 alleging that respondent no.3 relied upon the report of Assistant Commissioner (Nancowry) without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which were against the principle of natural and fair play. It was further alleged that the respondent no.3 failed to appreciate that affected shopkeepers were entitled to get compensation as per report of assessment committee dated 9th June, 2005 and the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 10,000/- was too meager to be proper compensation. During hearing Mr. It was further alleged that the respondent no.3 failed to appreciate that affected shopkeepers were entitled to get compensation as per report of assessment committee dated 9th June, 2005 and the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 10,000/- was too meager to be proper compensation. During hearing Mr. Jayapal, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that when government employees prepared the report dated 9th June, 2005 relating to details of shops damages (Annexure P-3) then the respondent authorities cannot deny the said report and turn down the prayer of the members of the writ petitioner association for giving them damages as per report dated 9th June, 2005. He has further submitted that it did not matter whether the writ petitioners had any authority to own any shop business in that area, when it was an admitted fact that they were running shops and business therein which were washed away during tsunami causing heavy loss. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities had the liability as well as responsibility to properly compensate the affected shopkeepers being members of the writ petitioner association. Mr. Tabraiz, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as it was filed by a un-registered association. In this connection, he has referred a case law reported in 1990-AIR (CAL) - 0-176 (Sand Carrier’s Owners Union –vs- Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta). He has further submitted that the members of the writ petitioner association cannot claim as a matter of right the alleged compensation. He has next submitted that a scheme was framed with the approval of Central Government and that all affected persons including the members of the writ petitioner Association were given an interim relief of Rs. 2000/-each followed by Rs. 10,000/- each. He has further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that its members were discriminated by the respondents in the matter of giving compensation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition with costs. Mr. Jayapal in reply has submitted that in the earlier occasions when earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 074 of 2008 was filed by this association then it was not submitted that the writ was not maintainable for being filed by an unregistered association. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition with costs. Mr. Jayapal in reply has submitted that in the earlier occasions when earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 074 of 2008 was filed by this association then it was not submitted that the writ was not maintainable for being filed by an unregistered association. According to him the matter is res judicata and it cannot be raised in the subsequent hearing of writ petition. In support of his contention, he referred the case law reported in (2009) 6 SCC 428 (M.P.Palaniswamy & Others –vs- A. Krishnan & Others). In the case of M.P. Palanisway and Others (ibid) as referred by learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Hon’ble Court observed that when condition relating to seniority was not challenged in earlier occasion then the said issue cannot be raised in second or third round of litigation and that matter should be barred by constructive res judicata. I am afraid the aforesaid case law has no application on the facts of the present case. In the said case law a question of fact was not raised and challenge in the first term of litigation and accordingly, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it was barred by constructive res judicata and should not be permitted to raise in subsequent rounds of litigation. However, the point of law can be raised at any point of time and there cannot be any res judicata. In Sand Carrier’s Owners Union case (ibid) it was specifically held by this Court that the unregistered associations are not legal persons and as such the writ petition filed by them is not maintainable. I am of the opinion that the ratio of the said case law is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case also this writ petition has been filed by one Katchal Shopkeeper Association which is not a registered one. As such the writ petition was not maintainable. I am of the opinion that the ratio of the said case law is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case also this writ petition has been filed by one Katchal Shopkeeper Association which is not a registered one. As such the writ petition was not maintainable. It came out from the materials on record as well as of the submissions of learned counsel of both sides that members of the writ petitioner association wanted just compensation as per report dated 9th June, 2005 prepared by survey team of the respondent authorities, but monetary reliefs were paid to all affected persons in the islands under the special scheme and that members of the writ petitioner association received Rs. 10,000/- each as per special scheme. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief as asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. It cannot be said that members of the writ petitioner association had any legal right to claim compensation against the Administration when their shops and business establishments were destroyed by natural calamity. It is also not a case of the writ petitioner that they were discriminated in the matter of giving monetary relief or that persons standing on same footing received higher monetary relief. If that be so, then I am of the opinion that present writ petitioner has no case. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. However, no order as to costs.