Supreme Court Stays Further Disbursal Of Compensation To Fishermen's Society Over Thane Creek Bridge-III Project

"Notice returnable 09.05.2022."

By an interim order, the Bombay High Court had directed the authority to deposit Rs. 10 crores with the Registrar of the High Court. It had also recommended payment of Rs. 1 lakh to each affected family as interim compensation. Again by its order dated 23.03.2022, the High Court had directed the Registrar to disburse Rs. 1 lakh to the members of the fishermen's society ("Society").

The Counsel appearing for the Society apprised the Bench that the compensation amount has already been disbursed.

Observing that no adjudication has taken place to identify the people who have been affected by the construction of the bridge, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna directed -

"By way of interim order it is directed that no further amounts shall be disbursed by the Respondent, pursuant to the impugned order passed by the High Court if not disbursed so far. It is further directed that if compensation, any made, shall be subject to the ultimate outcome of the present SLP."

Senior Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of the Corporation, the project proponent of the Thane Creek Bridge - III project, submitted -

"We are a State Government undertaking. We were asked to deposit Rs. 10 crores, that was wrong."

The Bench noted that there was indeed no clarity as to whom the compensation is to be paid.

"We appreciate your difficulty, to whom the 1 lakh of compensation is to be paid."

Mr. Rohatgi emphasised that the payment of compensation was directed without ascertaining injury caused to the members of the Society.

"Correct. We said to whom it will go. Whether there is any injury to them?"

The Counsel for the Society responded, "The department has identified."

Refuting the claim of identification, Mr. Rohatgi asserted that he has evidence to show that the construction of the bridge has not affected the livelihood of the fishermen.

"Nobody has identified. The first question is that - is there any injury? I have got photographs where we are expanding the bridge. Under the bridge the creek is flowing and they are fishing. Where is the alleged loss of livelihood?"

He submitted that, even though the Corporation had requested the Registrar of the High Court not to disburse the deposited amount, it had issued a Rs. 10 crore cheque to the Society. In light of the same, he beseeched the Bench to stay the disbursement.

"The High Court asked us to deposit, we deposited. Yesterday in spite of telling the Registrar of the High Court that the matter is soon coming up before the Supreme Court, the Registrar has issued a Rs.10 crore cheque to the society, which is to disburse to unknown people. They should not disburse, this is public money."

Justice Shah was of the opinion that the High Court had erred in passing such orders without first identifying the fishermen affected by the construction project.

"Until and unless this was proved and adjudicated, no final orders could have been passed by the High Court. The High Court has passed orders beyond jurisdiction and authority."

Perturbed that the High Court had unnecessarily stepped into the shoes of the administration, Justice Nagarathna remarked -

"Have the authorities abdicated their responsibilities that by interim order the High Court has to take up administration."

The Counsel for the Society argued that the High Court had noted that the construction was also causing damage to the Creek ecology.

The Mariyayi Macchimaar Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit had filed a public interest litigation before the Bombay High Court seeking compensation for its members from Vashigaon, Juhugaon, Koperkhairane, Diva and Ghansoli fishing villages for loss of mangroves, mudflats and creeklets on account of construction of the Thane Creek Bridge-III. It further sought directions to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation to refrain from commencing with the construction. Moreover, it sought the indulgence of the Court to direct the State Authorities to frame a compensation scheme to protect the socio-ecological interest of the traditional fishermen who are deprived of their livelihood due to the construction of the bridge. By order dated 12.08.2021, the High Court classified the members of the Society as "affected fishermen" and, inter alia, directed the Corporation to determine compensation as the project adversely impacted the customary right of the affected fishermen. The Corporation argued that the classification was without any scrutiny of the status of individual members of the Society and the compensation was based on 'likelihood' of impact. By virtue of another interim order dated 25.02.2022, the Corporation was directed to deposit Rs. 10 crore with the Register and pay Rs. 1 lakh to the "affected fishermen" as interim compensation, which the Corporations contended, was without ascertaining the actual affected parties. By the latest interim order dated 23.03.2022, the High Court had directed disbursement of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to each family within a period of two weeks.

Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mariyayi Macchimaar Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit And Ors. SLP (C) No. 6292 of 2022