JUDGMENT Harish Tandon, J. 1. The solitary point in issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner's resort is located within the radius as defined in the notification dated 30th October, 2007 issued in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes), Regulation, 1956. 2. By notification dated 29th March, 2005 issued by the A & N Administration, a scheme was framed for granting 50% capital subsidy on the industrial units engaged in tourism, information technology, fisheries, coconut and arecanut in rural areas. The object behind such scheme was to promote the industrial units engaged in above referred activities in the rural areas and was operative on and from 1st April, 2002 till 31st March, 2007. In order to avail the capital subsidy under the said scheme, the petitioner purchased the land situates at Sundergarh at Baratang for setting up a resort for tourism purposes. The conversion of the land for tourist purpose was granted on 14th March, 2007 subject to the conditions that the petitioner or the successor in interest shall pay the land revenue at revised rate regularly, shall not use the land for any other purposes other than for which the permission was granted and shall strictly follow the setback rules. 3. The petitioner after obtaining loan from the State Bank of India raised the construction and started the hotel activities by providing the lodging and the food to the tourists. In the mean time, the A & N Administration, Directorate of Tribal Welfare published a notification dated 30th October, 2007 declaring the area around Jarawa Tribal reserve as a buffer zone. It is notified therein that an area up to five kilometers radius around the said tribal reserve from the boundary line starting from Constance Bay in South Andaman to Lewis Inlet Bay in Middle Andaman as buffer zone. Some of the industrial units who felt aggrieved by the declaration of the boundary line as buffer zone challenged the said notification dated 30th October, 2007 by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.328 of 2007 before this Court. Some of the industrial units who felt aggrieved by the declaration of the boundary line as buffer zone challenged the said notification dated 30th October, 2007 by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.328 of 2007 before this Court. It is tried to be contended therein that the declaration of an area as buffer zone by the Directorate of Tribal Welfare is opposed to Section 3 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes), Regulation, 1956 (in short said Regulation) which only authorizes the Chief Commissioner to declare the reserved area of the aboriginal tribes and as such the declaration of an area as buffer zone is beyond the competence of the said authority. 4. The aforesaid contention was upheld on the ground that the competence of the Chief Commissioner relates to the declaration of the reserved area for aboriginal tribes and not the buffer zone. The Mandamus appeal being MAT No.31 of 2009 was also dismissed thereby affirming the judgement passed in the said writ petition. The special leave petition being SLP(Civil) No.12125 of 2010 was admitted and interim order of stay of the impugned order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP was again listed on 02.7.2009 and a direction was made upon the authorities to implement the said notification relating to buffer zone and to file the statement relating to the issuance of the closure of all commercial and tourists establishment within the buffer zone on the next date. 5. It appears that on 21st April, 2008, the petitioner applied for grant of bar licence and a proceeding was initiated in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman District, Mayabunder. The Tehsildar, Rangat was directed to submit a report as to whether the petitioner's resort comes within the buffer zone or not. The Tehsildar, Rangat reported that the said resort is located more than five kilometers away from Jirkatang Jarawa area and more than two kilometres from Kadamtola Jarawa (Primitive Tribal Group) reserve. However, it was doubted by the said Tehsildar, Rangat that he is unable to report conclusively in absence of the exact buffer zone map which is not available with his office. In response to the said report the Secretary (Tribal Welfare) was approached for his comments. However, it was doubted by the said Tehsildar, Rangat that he is unable to report conclusively in absence of the exact buffer zone map which is not available with his office. In response to the said report the Secretary (Tribal Welfare) was approached for his comments. According to the comments submitted in terms of the said response, it appears that the said authority indicated that necessary amendments in the said Regulation is under active consideration of the Administration. The said comment does not speak about whether the petitioner's resort is situated within the buffer zone or not. But the authorities, on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, Rangat that the resort is situated within the radius of five kilometres from Kadamtola Jarawa (Primitive Tribal group) reserve, held that the said resort is within the five kilometres radius and is required to shut down its operation. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) on being approached by the Chief Secretary reported that the resort is located within the five kilometres radius from all directions and therefore comes within the buffer zone area. The basis for the measurement was done from the digitalised arc view software by superimposing on A & N Islands map. Subsequently, a notice dated 8th December, 2010 was issued upon the petitioner to close down the activities as the petitioner's resort falls within the buffer zone as declared by the authorities. By further order No.3 dated 14th January, 2011 the petitioner was reminded to shut down her activities and by further order dated 8th February, 2011, the Tehsildar, Rangat was directed to seal the petitioner's resort which is impugned in this writ petition. 6. Mr. Rajinder Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar, Rangat in his report expressly indicated that the situs of the petitioner's resort is beyond the radius of the buffer zone and as such the closure notice is palpably illegal and have been issued with non-application of mind. He succinctly submits that nowhere it has been declared by the authorities concerned that the Sundergarh village comes within the radius of the buffer zone. The action of the authorities concerned is in colourable exercise of its power which per se is arbitrary and unreasonable. 7. He succinctly submits that nowhere it has been declared by the authorities concerned that the Sundergarh village comes within the radius of the buffer zone. The action of the authorities concerned is in colourable exercise of its power which per se is arbitrary and unreasonable. 7. Lastly, he submits that the Supreme Court has not directed the authorities to shut down all and sundry industrial units engaged in the tourism situated at Baratang and therefore the action of the authorities in issuing the closure notice in terms of the order of the Apex Court is illegal and invalid. 8. Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 9 refuted the aforesaid submission of the petitioner in contending that the Tehsildar, Rangat in its report expressly indicated that the petitioner's resort is located within five kilometres from Kadamtala Jarawa reserve area. He streneously submits that the entire Sundergarh village falls within the buffer zone which is corroborated from letter dated 3rd July, 2011 issued by the Tehsildar, Rangat. 9. Lastly, he submits that in the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner's resort is located within the buffer zone upon rectifying and re-checking of the boundary of the buffer zone by the concerned authority. He, however, placed the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No.12125 of 2010 by contending that while disposing of the said Special Leave Petition it is held that the prohibition contained in the notification dated 30th October, 2007 is unconditional and till the same is rescind or amended no commercial or tourism related activity can be allowed within the reserved area or the buffer zone. 10. Having heard the respective submissions, the only point in dispute in this writ petition is whether the petitioner's resort is located within the area declared by the authority as buffer zone. The petitioner has not addressed on an issue whether such declaration is beyond the competence of the authority or is otherwise invalid being unreasonable and/or arbitrary. The aforesaid point otherwise now could not be urged because of the intervening order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.12125 of 2010 by declaring the said notification to be valid and unconditional. The aforesaid point otherwise now could not be urged because of the intervening order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.12125 of 2010 by declaring the said notification to be valid and unconditional. Therefore, the only point which is left for consideration is whether the action of the authority in bringing the petitioner's resort within the buffer zone is valid and proper. 11. It is no doubt true that initially a doubt was raised whether the petitioner's resort is located within the area declared as buffer zone in notification dated 30th October, 2007. The Tehsildar, Rangat in his report stated that the resort is located more than five kilometres from Jirkatang Jarawa area and more than two kilometers from Kadamtala Jarawa (Primitive Tribal Group) reserve. What is logically followed from the said report is that the petitioner's resort is within five kilometres radius from Kadamtala Jarawa (Primitive Tribal Group) reserve. Since the Tehsildar, Rangat did not have the exact buffer zone map in his office, the Secretary(Tribal Welfare) was approached to send the concrete proof relating to the exact distance from the reserved area. In absence of full-proof map, the exact measurement relating to the distance from the reserved area could not be made. In order to implement the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition by which the authorities were directed to implement the notification relating to buffer zone and to issue the closure of all commercial and tourism activities within the buffer zone, the authorities re-checked the boundaries of the buffer zone by taking a satellite imaginary and topographical sheets and declared the Sundergarh village at Baratang within the radius of buffer zone. The petitioner could not produce any material before the Court that the aforesaid decision of the authority is wrong as the measurement taken by using the satellite imaginary is not permissible. The primary object of enacting the said regulation is to protect the aboriginality of the Jarawa tribes without being threatened by the industrial/commercial encroacher. By Section 3 of the said Regulation the power to declare an area to be a reserved or the buffer zone is conferred upon the Chief Commissioner. The contention that the Chief Commissioner under Section 3(1) has no authority to declare the buffer zone has been turned down by the Apex Court in the said Special Leave Petition. By Section 3 of the said Regulation the power to declare an area to be a reserved or the buffer zone is conferred upon the Chief Commissioner. The contention that the Chief Commissioner under Section 3(1) has no authority to declare the buffer zone has been turned down by the Apex Court in the said Special Leave Petition. While holding that the said notification is not unconditional and invalid it is observed:- “Therefore, till the notification is rescinded or amended, no commercial or tourism related activity can be allowed within the Reserved Area or the Buffer zone and it is not possible for the Court to approve the suggestions contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of letter dated 10.5.2012 sent by the Principal Secretary (Tribal Welfare), Andaman and Nicobar Administration. We, therefore, direct that henceforth no commercial and tourism related activities shall be carried out by the administration or any private individual in violation of the prohibition contained in notification dated 30.10.2007 and order dated 6.11.2007.” 12. Therefore, to bring within the ambit of the buffer zone, any area is within the exclusive domain of the said authority and any decision which has been taken should not be interfered unless it is demonstrated that the same is an outcome of non-application of mind, irrational, unreasonable or taken on extraneous consideration. The said notification has its operation with full force and rigour and unless the same is rescinded and amended the petitioner cannot be allowed to run the commercial activities within the buffer zone. Furthermore, the Administration by filing an affidavit before the Supreme Court have categorically stated in Paragraph 17 thereof that the petitioner's resort having located within the buffer zone has been closed down by issuing the notice of closure in these words:- “17. The primary concern which the Buffer Zone notification was to address was the intermingling between Jarawas and tourists, and the Petitioner respectfully submits that there are no tourist establishments in the buffer zone. A notice has already been issued to the Respondent as well as to Dew Dal Resort in Sundergarh Village, Baratang, at the hearing before the Hon'ble Court on 3.12.10., it was pointed out by counsel appearing for the Respondent that there was one resort which was continuing to function in the buffer zone. The Petitioner submits that this reference appears to be to Dew Dale Resort (in Sundergarh Village, Baratang Island). The Petitioner submits that this reference appears to be to Dew Dale Resort (in Sundergarh Village, Baratang Island). It is submitted that no action was taken against this Resort because it appeared to lie outside the buffer zone however its application for a bar licence was rejected by the Administration. After the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 3.12.10, the boundary of buffer zone was re-verified and certain errors in the boundary were rectified, and as a result, it was found that the Dew Dale Resort and some other establishment in northern part of buffer zone in Middle Andaman actually fell within the buffer zone. In view of this, fresh notices has been issued on 8.12.10 to close this resort. Similarly the licence of one bar and restaurant in Pareshnagar and another wine shop run by the M/S ANNIDCO in Harinagar is cancelled in Middle Andaman on 9.12.10. Attached restaurant/hotel of the two bars one each in Nilambur in Baratang and Kadamtala in Middle Andaman, whose bar licenses had earlier been revoked, were also issued notice of closures on 8.12.10. Another hotel/restaurant has been issued notice on 8.12.10 to close the facility at Nilambur, Baratang. In all six such establishments have been issued notices/licence cancelled after 3.12.10. The details of the tourist related establishments closed after 3.12.10 is given at Annexure VI. As regards bars within the buffer zone, liquor licenses of all such bars have been cancelled, and the Petitioner categorically states that there is no bar functioning within the buffer zone. However, as stated above, small eateries, dhabas and tea shops in the village areas continue to operate, as these may not considered “commercial” establishments as contemplated under the notification dated 30.10.2007.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The subject dispute that the petitioner's resort having located beyond the buffer zone was a matter concerning the said Special Leave Petition and as such this Court cannot pass any order or direction granting relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. 14. The writ petition is thus dismissed. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.