Mariyayi Machhimaar Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Thr. H.R. Sutar vs Department Of Fisheries Thr. Commissioner Of Fisheries And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010138902021
2026:BHC-AS:43450-DB
1/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Salgaonkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2026.10.26 18:44:49 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2016 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.757 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.880 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.19487 OF 2022
Mariyayi Machhimaar Sahkari .. Petitioner
Sanstha Maryadit
Versus
Department of Fisheries, .. Respondents
Maharashtra & Ors.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13834 OF 2025
Koperkhairane Machhimaar Sarkari .. Petitioner
Society Maryadit
Versus
Department of Fisheries, .. Respondents
Maharashtra & Ors.
….
Mr.Zaman Ali for the Petitioners in WP/2016/21.
Mr.Praful Patil i/b Ms.Pooja Gupta for the Petitioner in
WP/13834/25.
Mr.Karan S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel with Mr.M.M.Pable,
A.G.P. for the State/Respondent in WP/2016/21.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
2/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Mr.Vaibhav Charalwar, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the
State/Respondent in WP/13834/25.
Ms.Jaya Bagwe with Ms.Srushti Parab for the Respondent
No.5/MCZMA in WP/2016/21.
Dr.Milind Sathe, Advocate General with Mr.Saket Mone,
Mr.Subit Chakrabarti and Ms.Aashka Vora i/b Vidhii Partners
for the Respondent No.8/MSRDC in WP/2016/21.
Mr.Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, Appointed as Amicus
Curiae with Mr.Rohil Bandekar and Mr.Sidhharth Joshi in
WP/2016/21.
Prof.Geetanjoy Sahu, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in
WP/2016/21.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 27 JULY, 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 16 OCTOBER, 2026
...
JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
1. Mariyayi Machhimaar Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, a
registered society under the Maharashtra Co-Operative
Societies Act, 1960, is comprised of members of traditional
fisherfolk community known as ‘Koli’ from Koliwadas such as
Vashigaon, Juhugaon, Koparkhairane, Ghansoli and Diva. It is
the pleaded case of the society that its members are dependent
upon fishing activity as their source of livelihood in and
around Thane Creek and the society, being registered in the
year 2001, claims to be actively engaged in raising welfare
concerns of its members. The society is also involved in the
business of selling and reselling of fish at fish markets across
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
3/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
the State. It is the claim of the society that its members have
been carrying out fishing activities with traditional fishing
gears since generations.
2. The Petitioner society, through its President, approached
the Court in the wake of the proposed expansion of Thane
Creek Bridge -III by construction of a new bridge (Vashi
Bridge) on inter-tidal fishing areas with its impact on the
mudflats and creeklets over Thane Creek. Pleading that the
construction of this bridge would have large scale impact on
tidal currents and turbidity levels, and hence an NOC was
sought from the Fisheries Department, apart from the fact
that it would lead to decrease in fish stock and impact
livelihoods of traditional fisherfolk, the Petitioner society
approached this Court by seeking the following reliefs :-
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to
provide appropriate compensation to fisherfolk members of
Petitioner belonging from Vashigaon, Juhugaon, Koparkhairane,
Diva and Ghansoli fishing villages for loss of mangroves, mudflats
and creeklets on account of the construction of Thane Creek Bridge-
III.
b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to refrain
Respondent No.8 from commencing construction of Thane Creek
Bridge-III without obtaining NOC from Fisheries Department.
c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to frame a
compensation scheme to protect the socio-ecological interests of
traditional fisherfolk members/communities in the State for
depriving their means of livelihood on account of
reclamation/damage/destruction of fishing areas, including
mangroves, mudflats, creeklets, for infrastructure projects.”
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
4/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
3. The Petition specifically pleaded thus :-
“4. Thane creek is connected to the Mumbai harbour on its South
and joins by a minor connection with the Ulhas river on its north
near Thane city. The Creek is broader and deeper towards the sea.
Extensive mudflats exist along the banks of the creek which are
characterized by the growth of mangroves. Due to such large-scale
availability of inter-tidal lands such as mudflats and mangroves,
Thane creek provides excellent catch of commercial fish and
crustaceans, which in the recent years has dwindled to a bare
minimum. This decline in fishery was mainly attributed to heavy
industrialization and urbanization that has taken place along both
the banks of the creek. In view of ecosystem of Thane Creek
providing huge ecosystem services by balancing the marine food
chain and attracting huge biodiversity of marine & avifauna and
breeding grounds for aquatic life, a large area of the Creek
comprising of 794 ha. was declared as "Thane Creek Flamingo
Sanctuary" under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 vide Notification No.
WLP-0315/CR-76/F-1 dated 06.08.2015. Annexed and marked
hereto as EXHIBIT - B is a copy of the said notification of Thane
Creek Flamingo Sanctuary dated 06.08.2015. The Project area falls
within the Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Thane Creek
Flamingo Sanctuary.
5. As on today, Thane Creek Bridge-I and II (also known as Vashi
Bridge) connect Mumbai (Mankhurd) to Navi Mumbai (at Vashi) on
Sion-Panvel Highway. For the purposes of expansion and catering
to increase in traffic congestion at the Bridge, Respondent No.8 has
commenced works to construct another bridge adjacent to the
present one, known as Thane Creek Bridge-III.”
4. The Petition in the wake of its pleadings and the reliefs
sought came up for consideration before the Division Bench
and Mr.Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate came to be appointed
as Amicus Curiae. Upon the pleadings being complete, a
detailed Judgment came to be passed on 12/08/2021, issuing
certain directions.
The Division Bench formulated the following Issues for
consideration :-
“(i)Whether the Petitioner can prove that the Project Affected
Fishermen (as defined in paragraph 1) have a customary right to
fish for a living in Thane Creek?
(ii)Whether TCB III is likely to detrimentally impact the practice of
such customary rights?
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
5/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
(iii) Whether a state-wide policy for all categories of persons whose
customary rights are affected by infrastructure projects is
required? If yes, what is the framework for such a policy that can be
recommended to the appropriate authorities?
(iv) If the answer to Issue (i), Issue (ii) and Issue (iii) is yes, what
should be the contours of a policy compensating those affected by
TCB III?”
The Court considered each of the Issue separately and
rendered its finding, by considering the submissions of
Mr.Zaman Ali, the counsel for the Petitioner as well as
considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the State
and the learned Amicus.
The submissions advanced on behalf of the Amicus were
tendered in a note of compilation and the Court appreciated
the rival contentions and rendered its finding on each of the
Issue, including the Issue as to whether fishing has ever been
held by the Courts to be a customary right.
By referring to the general principles in recognising
custom or usage as having force of law, it was concluded that
the fishermen have a customary right to fishing for a living
and reliance was placed upon the Judgments from other
jurisdiction like the decision in case of Malibongwe Savid
1
Gongqose & Ors. Vs. Ministry of Agriculture & Ors. , where
the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa had an occasion
to consider the issue relating to customary rights of fishing for
a livelihood, which placed reliance upon the decisions from
Australia, Canada in arriving at a conclusion that there exists
a customary right of fishing and then it reiterated the
principle that “ customary rights and conservation can co-
exist”.
1 Case No.1340/2016 Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
6/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
A decision of National Green Tribunal (NGT), Pune in the
2
case Ramdas Janardan Koli Vs. Secretary, MoEF & Ors. was
also taken note of, when the traditional fishermen from
Koliwadas in the Raigad District of Maharashtra sought
compensation for loss of livelihood caused by the project
activities of the Respondents and while grating the relief, the
NGT held that there are traditional fishing communities
claiming customary rights to fish on certain public lands and
the construction activity resulting into an infrastructure is
likely to cause permanent and temporary damage to the
marine ecosystem abutting the proposed project and likely to
impact their livelihood adversely and, therefore, directed
payment of compensation.
5. With the aforesaid finding being rendered, the documents
placed before the Court to establish their customary right to
fish for living in Thane Creek were also taken into
consideration to conclude thus :-
“a. The Project Affected Fishermen have inhabited Thane creek and
practiced fishing as their main source of livelihood for at least the
last 100 years, likely more. This qualifies as an activity being
practiced since time immemorial ;
b. Various documents, as demonstrated above, have recorded from
time to time that the Project Affected Fishermen have inhabited
Thane creek, and practiced fishing thereon. Therefore it is also
regular and continuous ;
c. The Project Affected Fishermen’s use of the creek has uniformly
been for the purpose of fishing, thereby making the usage certain
and not varied ;
d. Finally, their use for the purposes of fishing has been for their
own livelihood, and not on some industrial scale which makes the
exploitation of their right unreasonable. It is not even the case of
Respondent No. 8 or the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the activity
of fishing carried out by the fisherfolk is unreasonable.”
2 Application No.19/2013 before the NGT, (Western Zone) Bench, Pune
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
7/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
6. The second Issue as to whether TCB III is likely to impact
the Project Affected Fishermen’s customary right to fish for a
living was also answered in the affirmative. The said finding is
reached in the backdrop of certain facts, which were placed
before the Court, including the fact that the Authorities were
conscious that TCB III will affect the fishermen as MCZMA in
one of its meeting indicated that it should be constructed in a
manner which does not affect the navigational routes of the
local fishermen. Apart from this, the Authorities of the State
also recognized that the projects implemented in the maritime
area or along the sea coast would impact the livelihood of local
fishermen in the proximity of the project.
The Court expressed agreement with the Amicus curiae’s
submission that the destruction of mangroves for TCB III will
disturb the ecological balance in Thane Creek, as mangroves
are responsible for maintaining ecological balance and
sustaining biodiversity.
Holding that the Project Affected Persons’ customary
rights are likely to be impacted, the Court was of the view that
they are entitled to be compensated for their loss.
The difficulty, however, arose since there was no state-
wide compensation policy in existence providing guidance as
to how the compensation can be computed.
7. While answering Issue No.3, which fell for consideration,
the Court expressed that a state-wide compensation policy for
communities affected by Government infrastructure projects
needs to be framed as on occasions, the award of compensation
has been achieved by legislation, policy and judicial orders.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
8/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Reference was made to the policies enacted through the
legislation like The Mahul Creek Extinguishment of Rights Act,
1972, The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and the
MTHL Compensation Policy. Reference was made to the
legislations like The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
Rehabilitation Act, 1996, The Right To Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. It is in this background, it was
expressed that once a customary right to carry out an
occupation for a means of livelihood is affected, the principles
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be
invoked and this would form the basis of the State’s duty to
provide for compensation and, therefore, the Issue No.(iii) was
answered in the affirmative, by ruling that a state-wide
compensation policy is required not only for fishermen
compensation, but for the compensation of any community
whose customary rights to carry out an activity for their
livelihood is impacted by Government infrastructure projects.
8. It is with this background, the Division Bench proceeded
to set out the factors and criteria for formulating a
comprehensive compensation policy in identifying whether
the customary rights of Project Affected persons are impacted
and a Compensation Committee shall be constituted
comprising of different elements, including the representative
of the Project Affected Persons, representative of the District
Collector, member from the implementing agency etc. The
Committee was expected to address the questions that may
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
9/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
arise in award of compensation to the Project Affected Persons
including; (a) laying down the principles for identification of
persons affected by a Public Project, (b) applying these
principles to actually identify each family/person in the
community of Affected Persons that needs to be compensated,
(c) determining the types of vocation undertaken by the
Affected Persons (for e.g., with respect to the fishermen
community, the fishing activity could be practiced
commercially, or for sustenance, or as artisanal fishing) and
(d) categorizing the types of loss that has been suffered
(direct/indirect, permanent/temporary, etc.), (e) laying down
a mathematical formula for payment of compensation and
attributing compensation figures to each type of loss, (f)
determining total amount payable in accordance with the
devised formula, (g) ensuring the each of the Affected Person
are paid the compensation owed to them in a timely manner
and (h) entertaining applications for compensation from those
that claim to be affected by a project that has not been
identified as a Public Project as defined above, i.e. a project
which the State Government or implementing agency
concludes is not a project affecting customary rights of a class
of persons. This would include applications from parties
seeking that a particular project should be classified as a
Public Project as defined above. The guidelines were also
issued for the Compensation Committee in determining the
compensation like taking into consideration the direct/indirect
impact of the Public Project on the exercise of customary
rights and means of livelihood of the Affected Persons,
whether the impact is permanent and substantial, the ability
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
10/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
or the potential of such affected persons to be rehabilitated etc.
The guidelines also included the manner in which the
compensation shall be derived and distributed.
9. With the aforesaid direction being issued, the matter was
adjourned for reporting compliance on i) Framing state-wide
policy; ii) Determination of compensation by the TCB
Compensation Committee to Project Affected Persons
represented by the Petitioner.
10. The Petition appeared before the Court once again on
16/02/2022 and the Court noted that no compensation was
paid and rather it was informed that atleast a year would be
required to finally decide the issue of compensation. Being not
happy with the situation, as the Court expressed a view that
the fishermen and their family members cannot be expected to
starve until the concerned Authority determine the quantum
of compensation, the Court directed the Central Marine
Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) to submit an interim
report to the Court and informed it about the quantum of
interim compensation required to be paid to the fishermen at
the earliest. Though the determination of interim
compensation was indicated to be an ad-hoc exercise, the
Court expected CMFRI to have due regard to the order dated
12/08/2021 which had laid down principles and guidelines in
determining the interim compensation.
Awaiting the computation of actual compensation, by
way of interim measure, it was recommended that the MSRDC
shall make payment of Rs.One Lakh to every affected
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
11/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
fisherman and it was directed that sum of Rs.Ten Crores shall
be deposited in the Court towards interim compensation.
11. In the wake of the deposit of compensation amount of
Rs.Ten Crores, on 23/03/2022, on the suggestion of the
learned Amicus, the question of disbursement of ad-hoc
compensation was taken up by noting that despite passing of
more than seven months of the order passed by the Court,
there was no clarity as to how the fishermen should be
compensated and as regards the direction to CMFRI to carry
out a detailed study as to how TCB III would impact the
fishermen, even it was taking considerable time for conclusion
of the studies. It was also noted that CMFRI, by filing an
affidavit, made it clear that it cannot render assistance for
determining the compensation, but can only assist any agency
or institute such as Tata Institute of Social Sciences, which
may be entrusted with the responsibility of determining
compensation.
With this background, with the emergent urgency of
arranging livelihood for the fishermen, who were impacted, the
Court directed the Registrar (Judical -I) to pay the sum of
Rs.Ten Crores deposited by MSRDC to the Petitioner society,
which was directed to distribute it to its members in the sum of
Rs.One Lakh per family. It was also directed that if some
amount was found to be in excess of the amount required for
distribution amongst the members, the same shall be brought
back to the Court.
12. It is this order passed by the Division Bench, which was
subjected to an Appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court by
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
12/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
MSRDC and the Court was informed that the state-wide
compensation policy for the project affected fisherfolk, affected
by the Government infrastructure projects was in the process
of its formulation. Recording that since more than 7 to 8
projects were under progress, the State was directed to
expedite the framing of compensation policy. As a follow-up
thereof, the Government of Maharashtra through Agriculture,
Dairy Development, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries
Department formulated a state-wide compensation policy for
the project affected fishermen and by the Government
Resolution, a Committee under the Chairmanship of
Commissioner (Fisheries) was constituted to compensate the
fishermen affected by TCB III project and a Committee was also
constituted under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Minister
(Fisheries) to take decision on proposed draft of the State level
compensation policy.
The objectives of the policy were set out as below :-
1) Identification of (impact on livelihood) fishers;
2) Type of fishing vessels and other information;
3) Technical assessment and social impact assessment;
4) Base Line Survey by Implementing Agencies;
5) A Standard operating procedure;
6) Compensation to the fishers;
7) Grievance Redressal System
13. The Petition then appeared before the Bench of Justice
B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla on
02/05/2025 and the note was taken of the previous orders
passed by the earlier Division Bench, including the orders of
payment of compensation as well as the dismissal of the
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
13/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Special Leave Petition, recording that the orders dated
12/08/2021, 25/02/2022 and 23/03/2022 had attained
finality.
When the matter came up for consideration before the
Division Bench, the Court had before it the interim report
dated 12/05/2022 and the final report dated May 2023 of
CMFRI.
The Petition was circulated by the Petitioner seeking
appointment of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to
assess the extent of damage caused and to quantify such
damage for the purposes of determining the quantum of
compensation payable. It was specifically urged before the
Court that the final report of CMFRI has failed to quantify the
loss suffered and to assess the impact on the increase/decrease
of fish catch and diversity due to the absence of baseline data
of the original ecology for the period prior to the construction
of TCB III and despite this, the final report concluded that TCB
III has impacted gill net fishing, hook net fishing and crab trap
fishing and noted that construction activity of TCB III has
resulted in a change in turbidity of water. Alleging that the
report was cryptic and did not attempt to indicate the
quantum or extent of damage caused to the Project Affected
Fishermen, the Petitioner suggested that an institute with the
requisite knowledge and expertise, like TISS, be appointed to
carry out this exercise.
14. The prayer received strong opposition from MSRDC,
which urged that there is no infirmity in the final report
prepared by CMFRI and in fact, there was no damage that was
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
14/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
caused to the Project-Affected Fishermen and this was so
reflected in the final report of CMFRI. The Amicus Curiae,
however, supported the request and agreed that the final
report prepared by CMFRI to some degree allude to both,
temporary and permanent damage, but it conclude that the
exact extent and quantum of damage cannot be assessed
because there is no ‘baseline data’ or in other words, there is
no data or statistics prior to the commencement of
construction of TCB III, which could be used for comparison.
15. On hearing the submissions, and with reference to the
earlier orders, the Court expressed its view that TCB III will
have an impact on livelihood of Project Affected Fishermen
and the purpose of CMFRI report or the report of any other
expert agency was to determine the extent of loss.
Noting that the order of 23/03/2022 was confirmed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and even the report of CMFRI has
also recorded that to some extent there is temporary and
permanent damage caused to the Project-Affected Fishermen
as regards their customary right to fish for living, it was noted
CMFRI was unable to quantify the extent of loss and
consequent compensation payable and rather candidly
admitted by an affidavit that it is not competent to render
assistance for determining compensation, but is the only body
like TISS which may be able to do so.
16. Upon the attention of the Court being invited to a report
prepared by TISS on the topic, “Compensation Policy and its
Implementation Plan for Project-Affected Fisherfolk of Mumbai
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
15/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Coastal Road Project (South)” dated February 2023, the Court
was persuaded to avail the services of TISS, as its services
were earlier engaged to conduct a study after construction of
the coastal road as well as under way and by applying an
appropriate methodology, it could reasonably assess the
damage and compensation and the Court expected TISS to
undertake a similar effort.
17. In light of the aforesaid, the Court passed the following
order :-
“35. In light of the above observations, we direct TISS to
prepare a detailed report on the extent of damage and loss caused
to the Project Affected Fishermen of TCB III and to recommend an
amount towards the quantum of compensation payable to the said
Project Affected Fishermen. Needless to add that TISS may
recommend a range of compensation and the compensation may
vary across different categories of Project Affected Fishermen as
may be determined by TISS. It is clarified that TISS can interact
with all/any of the persons involved to come to its findings. The
costs which will be incurred by TISS are to be borne by Respondent
No.8.”
However, in light of the Resolution passed by the Government
of Maharashtra, declaring the state-wide compensation policy
for Affected Fishermen, which was also subjected to challenge
in a writ petition pending before the Bombay High Court, the
Division Bench indicated thus :-
“TISS is at liberty to use the state-wide policy for guidance, but
should ultimately apply its own mind to the impact caused by TCB
III in the same way that it has done in its report pertaining to Costal
Road (South).”
18. In compliance of the said order, TISS has tendered its
report captioned as, “Compensation Framework And
Recommendations on the Extent and Quantum of Livelihood
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
16/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Loss Sustained By Project-Affected Fishermen Due To The
Thane Creek Bridge (TCB)-III” dated 21/11/2025.
The report is placed on record and arguments advanced
before us now revolve around the report of TISS.
At the outset, we should note that the report contained
the background as well as it has highlighted the overview of
Thane Bridge Creek III as well as its significance. It has
examined the environmental and social dimensions of the
construction of TCB III and also highlighted the historical
perspective of the Petitioner society versus Department of
Fisheries and others. It has set out the methodology, which
was adopted for assessing the impact of TCB III project on the
livelihood of fishermen and it states that it has used the mixed-
method approach to examine the extent and magnitude of the
loss and damage in the wake of the construction of TCB III.
Chapter II set out that the research framework is grounded on
the living wage and livelihood security framework , allowing
for a multidimensional analysis of changes in livelihood
assets, access to resources, emerging risks and the coping
strategies employed by fishing households. The phases of the
study alongwith Literature Review and Survey Design coupled
with Primary Qualitative and Quantitative Data Collection,
which was adopted alongwith the Stakeholders Consultation is
specifically highlighted. The report also contain a profile of
Project-Affected Fishing Families with reference to their access
to basic amenities and entitlements, education, occupation etc.
It also contained a review of Compensation Literature and
policy for Project -Affected Fishermen in Indian Coastal States,
including the compensation provided for JNPT-ONGC Project-
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
17/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Affected Fishermen, compensation for MTHL Project-Affected
Fishermen, Compensation for the Coastal Road Project etc. In
Chapter VII of the report, TEES has made recommendations,
after devising a formula by which it assessed the category-wise
compensation payable to different zones based on severity of
impact, by setting them apart into six structured categories
and ranging the loss from permanent loss of fishing area to
loss from restricted movements, increased fuel cost, minor
damage to net boats etc.
19. In the backdrop of the earlier orders passed by this Court
and since the Court was of the view that CMFRI report did not
specifically determined the amount of compensation payable
and, therefore, it assigned the task to TISS, who has submitted
a report covering the compensation framework and has also
made recommendations for dealing with the grievance set out
in the Petition, we are called upon to examine its effect and
whether the formula drawn for payment of compensation and
the recommendations deserve an implementation, which will
act towards redressal of the grievance of the members of the
Petitioner society.
20. We have before us the report of CMFRI of May 2023 and
the subsequent report of TISS in terms of the directions issued
by this Court, as CMFRI clearly expressed that it was unable to
quantify the extent of loss and the consequent compensation
payable to the Project Affected fishermen.
We have briefly referred to the report submitted by TISS
and we find that by reviewing the Compensation Literature
and policy for the Project-Affected Fishermen in Indian Coastal
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
18/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
States, which include the compensation payable to the
fishermen in the wake of annual 61 day fishing ban in Tamil
Nadu, the State had evolved monetary relief scheme and
assistance was offered in the sum of Rs.5,000/- per family,
which was distributed to about 1.79 lakh fishing households
across 14 coastal Districts, with a total allocation of roughly
Rs.89.5 Crore in the relevant year. This amount has been
subsequently increased to Rs.8,000/- per registered fisherman
(mechanised and non-mechanised) to reflect the inflationary
and cost pressures. Apart from this, it is noted that Tamil
Nadu offers Savings-cum-Relief Scheme for marine
fisherwomen and the State’s Fisheries & Fishermen Welfare
Policy describe the entitlements under the Tamil Nadu
Fishermen and Labourers (Social Security and Welfare) Act,
2007, which explicitly covers allied activities such as net-
mending or fish processing workers as eligible for social
welfare benefits.
21. Another citation is in respect of the compensation
demand emerging from Kerala in the wake of ship sinking and
fuel spill off its coast in May 2025. The spill disrupted marine
ecosystem resulting into imposition of fishing restrictions over
a 20-nautical-mile radius, and severely impacted coastal
fishing communities. A suit was filed by the State Government
against the company seeking compensation for ecological
damage, livelihood loss and clean up and mitigation costs. The
Kerala High Court ordered temporary relief and containment
measures and entertained the petition from fisher associations
demanding fair compensation. The Kerala High Court opined
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
19/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
that the loss of harvested fish due to marine pollution
constituted economic loss and the State’s attempt to detain
another MSC vessel until compensation is secured,
demonstrated the use of legal mechanism to enforce
compensation claim.
In Goa and smaller States, it is noted that the relief is
limited to State Fisheries Department grants, small scale aid
for damaged vessels or gear, or subsidised inputs rather than
structured compensation and such schemes are not well
documented in public domain or academic studies.
In Union Territory of Puducherry, in the case case of 61-
day fishing ban, it increased its assistance from Rs.6,500/- to
Rs.8,000/- per family and the amounts were disbursed via
electronic clearance system.
22. The livelihood compensation framework for fishermen in
Maharashtra was also scanned to note that no systematic
record exists of reliable compensation or remediation in the
areas like Konkan coast, including Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg and
Raigad though activities like Port expansion, thermal power
stations, coastal tourism development having progressively
diminished, affecting non-mechanised and intermittent
fishermen. It is found that the fishers have to often rely upon
informal dialogues, negotiated settlements or sporadic
corporate social responsibility initiatives from private entities.
However, beyond the infrastructure projects, Maharashtra has
a conservation-linked compensation scheme managed by the
Mangrove Foundation and the fishers, who accidentally trap
the protected marine species and release them are eligible for
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
20/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
fix payments and in fiscal year 2020-21, an amount of Rs.20.4
lakh was distributed. However, it is noted that these payments
are small and targeted to conservation actions.
23. The report of TISS also relied upon the compensation
policy for Project-Affected fishermen and it relied upon three
representative cases; the first one in Ramdas Janardan Koli
Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors., which
involved traditional fishing families from four Koliwadas in
Uran Taluka of Raigad District, who alleged loss of livelihood
stemming from Port expansion and projects undertaken by
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT).
It was urged that due to these projects, mangrove
destruction and obstruction of tidal flows occurred, which
impaired their access to fishing areas and stock. The National
Green Tribunal recognised a total of 1,630 traditional fisher
families as project-affected and entitled for compensation. The
liability was apportioned between CIDCO, JNPT and ONGC
reflecting their share of responsibility for damage. The
Tribunal fixed the total compensation amount of Rs.95.19
crores, which was equally distributed amongst 1,630 families
(yielding roughly Rs.5.84 lakh per family).
The second instance referred to was the compensation
for Mumbrai Trans Harbour Link project, which was
introduced to decongest the traffic of the island city by
improving connectivity with Navi Mumbai covering
approximately 21.8 km in length, the infrastructure project
began in March 2018 and was completed in January 2024.
The MMRDA constituted a Fishermen Compensation
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
21/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Committee comprising of the members from the fishing
community, Department of Fisheries, Revenue, MMRDA,
Police and it formulated compensation policy by categorising
the losses of fishermen into six types and proposing
compensation amount in each category. The compensation
matrix for different types of losses was set out thus :-
“The Compensation Matrix for Different Types of Losses
Compensation Type of loss Nature of loss Compensation
Code
C1 Permanent Loss of fishing and
livelihood due to the
removal of fishing
stakes (sus’) and nets
in the ROW
Onetime payment of
Rs. 5,84,000/- per
unit as per the survey
conducted under
Clause No. 2.3 to 2.7
C2 Permanent Permanent loss of
revenue due to a
decline in fish catches
and changes in
seawater currents.
50% of the amount
provided per Unit in
Code C1
C3 Permanent Loss due to the
restricted movement
of subsistence-level
fisher-folks for hand
picking of fishery
organisms
One time payment of
50 % amount provided
in Code C1
C4 Temporary Loss of fishing time
and increased
operating cost (fuel)
to reach fishing
grounds from their
hamlets due to their
MTHL during the
construction phase.
The compensation
shall be based on
average travel time as
compared to the
period before
construction and as
determined during
construction survey
at Rs. 500/ per hr. for
Artisanal and Rs.
1000/- per hr. for
commercial.
C5 Temporary Loss of fish due to
increased turbidity
during the
construction phase.
Equal to the loss of
average catch as
compared to the
period before
construction, and as
determined during
the construction
survey.
C6 Incidental Damage of fishing
boats and nets due to
movements of
The actual cost of
damages to Boats,
Gear, etc. and for the
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
22/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
loss of time as
evaluated by the
Evaluation Committee
with the Office of the
Commissioner of
Fisheries/ MMB
barges, vessels,
machinery, materials
and men along the
ROW, jetties, casting
yards and labour
sites during
construction phase.
The third illustration borrowed was in respect of compensation
for the Coastal Road Project, which has significantly affected
local fishing communities by disrupting their livelihoods,
damaging coastal ecosystem, resulting into decrease in fish
catch. The disruption is alleged to have threatened their
cultural identity and weaken the entire fishing value chain and
for ascertaining its impact, the Corporation engaged TISS to
formulate a compensation policy.
TISS recommended a compensation policy to support the
fishermen focusing on protecting their livelihoods and coastal
ecosystem and the study assessed impacts on different groups
in the fishing value chain and designed a compensation matrix
tailored to their specific losses.
The recommendation of TISS was dependent upon the
boat type and the compensation estimate was thus computed:-
“Compensation Estimates for Fishermen of Worli Koliwada and Lotus Jettty
Boat/ PAF Type (I) Nature of Impact (II) Estimate per boat/fisherfolk
per year (III)
Hodi T Rs 1,75,000.00
1 Cyl T Rs 2,29,810.39
2 Cyl T Rs. 2,99,795.11
3 Cyl T Rs. 3,29,774.62
4 Cyl T Rs. 4,15,366.99
6 Cyl T Rs. 4,56,903.68
Tandels T Rs. 1,50,000.00
Khalashis T Rs. 1,20,000.00
Castnets* P Rs. 96,600.00
Handpickers* P Rs. 97,790.00
Fishsellers T Rs 1,11,527.41
Note
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
23/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
*The impact of the project on Handpickers and Castnets fishers is more or
less permanent or will remain for longer duration. Hence they should be
entitled for compensation for an additional 6 years beyond the completion of
marine works leading to unhindered access to sea for fishing and allied
activities.
*It is suggested that an interest as per government rules be applied on the
accumulated total compensation for the last four years i.e. 2018 to 2022.
24. TISS also referred to the report of CMFRI, which was
commissioned by MSRDC to assess the impact of TCB III
construction on biodiversity, fishing practices and the
livelihoods of local fisherfolk.
The report of CMFRI indicated that the most water
quality parameters were within acceptable limits, except low
dissolved oxygen and high turbidity at certain sampling
locations, but these anomalies were attributed to tidal flow,
sewerage influx and monsoon runoff, rather than directly to
bridge constructions, contradicting some of the local
fishermen’s claim. However, TISS noted that the report
identified specific ways in which the bridge could affect fishing
activities and it was indicated that TCB III has localised
impact, but it did not mention the extent or magnitude of the
impact nor did it provide detailed guidance on compensatory
measures or livelihood support to mitigate the effects on small
scale fishermen in the region. TISS also made a reference to
the Government Resolution dated 09/03/2023, when the
Government of Maharashtra framed and passed a Resolution
for state-wide compensation policy for the project-affected
fishermen. However, the report of TISS recorded the following
conclusion by comparing the available information as regards
the compensation policy, including the one introduced by the
State of Maharashtra used for offering compensation. The
conclusions are thus recorded.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
24/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
“SUMMARY
While Maharashtra's approach is among the most institutionalised
in the country, the compensation framework of the state exposes a
gap between principles on livelihood restoration and the practical
implementation deficiencies in state policy Global frameworks,
including the FAO's Voluntary Guidelines on Small-Scale Fisheries
(VGSSF) and the 2019 FAO Manual on Damage and Loss in
Fisheries, advocate for compensation systems that acknowledge (a)
cumulative and indirect damages, (b) contributions from informal
labour. (c) gender-differentiated impact trajectories, and (d)
cultural-ecological connections to fishing territories
However, Maharashtra's methodology, evident in both specific
projects like the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL), and the
Mumbai Coastal Road Project (CRP), broader policy formulation,
has predominantly conceptualized compensation as a single
financial disbursement, rather than a mechanism for sustaining
livelihoods, rights, or environmental equilibrium. The State-Wide
Compensation Policy (March 2023) establishes procedures for
impact evaluation but imposes maximum payment thresholds and
does not require participatory assessment approaches.
Consequently, while it constitutes progress, it remains misaligned
with the equitable transition frameworks advocated in
international environmental policy.
Academic and policy literature has critiqued the narrowness of
standard compensation regimes. Common points include the
underestimation of non-market values (such as cultural, relational,
and ecological), discounting future losses, and the exclusion of
informal actors who lack titles or registration. Reviews (Vanclay,
2017) caution that simplistic "asset and output loss" methods often
overlook power asymmetries in who is considered an "affected
person" and the longer-term erosion of livelihoods.
Another important insight is that cumulative and incremental
losses are often overlooked projects in fishing zones may cause
ecological shifts or resource pressure that gradually reduce yields,
an effect not captured by immediate pre- and post-comparison.
Also, temporal variability and seasonality must be embedded,
fishers' income is rarely steady throughout the year.”
25. Since the terms of reference to TISS particularly
indicated to formulate a compensation policy framework for
the project affected fishermen in five villages impacted by TCB
III project, according to TISS, two types of compensation are
crucial, namely, (A) Direct Loss Compensation and (B)
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
25/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Livelihood Security Compensation. According to TISS, the first
would cover the income loss from commencement of TCB III
project construction period (2021-2022) to the current period
i.e. 2024-2025 (four years) and this amount shall be one time
lumpsum amount, whereas in the second category, the
compensation according to TISS, shall provide the fishermen
with the opportunity to adapt and mitigate the cumulative
impact on their income due to project construction,
recognising that the losses can persist into future and thereby
offering fishermen a chance to diversify their income or choose
an alternative livelihood. The total compensation payable was
thus determined to be the total of both.
The report then addressed the issue of immediate and
measurable loss of fishing income of the Project-Affected
fishermen and it was conscious that for computing the loss, it
would be necessary to find out as to what was the earlier catch
or yield to the fishermen, so as to prove that there is reduction
in fish catch in the region on account of construction of TCB
III, but since there was no baseline for fishing activities and
income before the construction of TCB III, TISS relied upon the
‘income reported by respondents during the socio-economic
survey’.
Thus, in absence of any independent data, TISS relied
upon the income which the fishermen enjoyed and the
reduction in the income, which they perceived as the basis for
identifying the income loss experienced by the fishermen
belonging to different categories. It derived a formula, but as
per the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Dr.Sathe, this ought
not to have been the method of computing the data and the
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
26/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Researchers would have approached the Fisheries Department
to ascertain what was the yield of the fishermen before
construction of TCB III, during construction of TCB III and on
completion of construction of TCB III. But, we are surprised to
note that what is relied upon is the income reported by the
fishermen during their socio-economic survey, which probably
is not the correct yardstick to find out the income. Since
component (A) represented an annual loss on income was
estimated at the current level i.e. 2025, it applied a
discounting factor of 5% to adjust the value and the total
compensation for component (A) was computed as the sum of
annual losses after adjusting for the discounting period from
2021-2022 to 2024-2025.
As far as component (B) is concerned, in which the
Researcher worked out a framework for livelihood security
compensation, once again it erred as it adopted the framework
of Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of
Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) Expert Committee (2024), to derive the
cost of nutritious food for a family and using the ICMR-NIN, it
accepted that intake of 2000 calories is considered the average
value for a family and computing as to how much would be
required to contribute it to this value, a formula was derived
in valuing the cost of nutritious food, education, housing,
health and contingency and the monthly living wage and
earnings equivalent for a family was determined as
Rs.20,000/-, summing upto Rs.2,40,000/- for initial year with
an annual escalation to the retail inflation, it was enhanced.
26. In addition, the report also estimate the cumulative
impact of a series of construction activities and urbanization
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
27/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
in Thane Creek, resulting into reduction in flow, siltation and
plastic disposal thus resulting in a decrease in fish catch.
Once again, to determine the losses, it conducted a
project-affected, fishermen-wise socio-economic survey to
understand the extent of the decrease in fish catch and it was
estimated that there is reduction to 40 to 65% in the daily fish
catch and Vana fishing has reported the highest decrease in
the fish catch. The status of daily fish catch reported by the
villagers (in Kg) is tabulated in respect of the five villages with
respect to category of fishing i.e. Dol, Gill, Handpicker and
Vana, pre TCB III and the current period (2024-25). Based on
similar survey collecting the information from the affected
fishermen, the daily revenue from the fishing activities was
also computed and divided into two parts, namely, before TCB
III and at the current time to record that daily loss in revenue
due to fishing activities ranges from 20% to 57% and Dolnet
and Handpicker fishermen reported the highest decrease in
revenue due to decline in fish catch.
The very basis of computing the revenue based on daily
fish catch, pre TCB and current period itself, according to the
learned Amicus as well as Dr.Sathe is doubtful, once it is noted
that there is no data indicating what was the catch or the
revenue earned therefrom pre TCB III and the report faces
extreme criticism when it compute the direct loss
compensation and the revenue loss in percentage for different
fishermen categories. The report has divided the livelihood
support compensation into two components; (a) living wage,
which is set as Rs.2,40,000/- on the annual basis and inflated
annually at 5% on account for the rise in cost of living and (b)
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
28/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
income loss deflated annually at 17% to reflect the expected
decline in fishing.
27. The report then also provide for a compensation outlay
and framework and has computed the compensation
component in form of Direct Loss Compensation (DLC) for the
year 2021-22 to 2024-25 and by way of Livelihood Security
Compensation (LSC), it has computed the same from 2025-26
to 2030-31.
As far as the source of this data is concerned, the report
itself state that the estimation is drawn from the TISS
Socioeconomic survey and in respect of fishermen using Dol
and Vana, it was noted that the factor is not applicable since
the income exceeded the annual living wage security threshold
of Rs.2,40,000/-. In conclusion, the report provided a total
financial outlay with direct and livelihood support
compensation and aggregated the total compensation for
direct loss approximately Rs.94 crore. Considering the
livelihood security compensation for six years, it computed the
compensation to be paid to the project-affected fishermen
approximately to Rs.141 crore. In the summary of Chapter
VII, the report categorically state as below :-
“The above analysis and proposed compensation framework are
based on the available database and information collected during
the survey period from all the project-affected fishermen. While the
Direct Loss Compensation framework is designed to cover income
loss from the construction period of TCB-III to the current period,
the Livelihood Security Compensation framework is based on living
wage financial support studies. It is well recognised under Article
43 of the Indian Constitution. The livelihood security compensation
is very crucial in the context of the current project, as the project-
affected fishermen lack social, financial, and natural capital to
adapt to the emerging distress caused by the impact of TCB-III on
their livelihood. It was also found during the survey that
employment opportunities for their current generation are
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
29/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
inadequate, and they lack the basic skills to diversify their
occupations. We hope the proposed livelihood security
compensation amount will enable them to adapt to the current
financial distress and explore other options for livelihood
diversification.”
28. The learned Advocate General Dr.Sathe representing
MSRDC has contrasted the TISS report and its finding as
against the CMFRI final report of May 2023, which according
to him, did not find any substantial impact on the fishing
activity. Since the report was candid, according to him, the
Petitioner sought appointment of another agency and TISS was
appointed to work out the extent of damage by the TCB III
project. Dr.Sathe has placed before us a pictorial site plan
reflecting the position of TCB I, TCB II and TCB III as below :
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
30/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
He would submit that as far as TCB I, a Four Lane Bridge is
concerned, it is in existence since 1970 and has 48 pillars, the
distance between each pillar being approximately 50 meters.
In 1999, Three Lane Bridge (TCB-II) to cater to Vashi Bound
Traffic came to be constructed.
From the plan depicting the construction of the bridges,
Dr.Sathe would point out that TCB-III, which is a Three Lane
Bridge, one of which catering to the Vashi Bound Traffic and
another towards Mumbai Bound Traffic, is constructed in a
way that the navigation channel between TCB-II and TCB-III is
not changed. It is submitted that TCB-III North Bound is
completed in April 2024 and South Bound is completed in
April 2025. According to Dr.Sathe, for the first time a claim for
compensation is raised by the fishermen, when TCB-III is
constructed, whereas never ever the claim was raised before.
According to him, CMFRI in its report, stated that study area
was extended upto 3 km distance towards both sides from the
proposed Thane Creek and nine stations were fixed to
undertake detailed survey for observation of ongoing fishing
activities in the Creek. The study period was for one year and
the report record ongoing fishing activities during actual
survey in Thane Creek.
Apart from this, the fishermen were interacted
individually and the report included the details of the fishers
involved in fishing operations recorded during sampling tours
in Thane Creek. While reporting about the impact of pile
driving on fishery resources, the CMFRI report, highlighted
the position when the pile driving was ongoing as cement
concrete piles constructed in the proposed bridge penetrate
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
31/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
the bottom of the creek till solid bedrock. Pile construction
involve drilling of bottom leading to radiation of sound and
though para 4.5 of the said report noted that fish tend to move
away from the source of sound and the pile driving sounds at
relatively close range of a few kilometres, however was not the
cause for free- ranging cod to leave an area, but they chose to
move closer towards scour-bed and moved away from sound
source location.
Apart from this, Dr.Sathe would submit that CMFRI also
carried out testing of environmental water quality in situ and
arrived at conclusions to the effect that on either side of the
bridge Dol Net fishing operations were ongoing on all the
seasons on the existing location and it also categorised that
the fishing operations can be continued during the post
construction phase except the area covered by the newly
constructed pillars will not be available for fishing activity
permanently.
Thus, according to Dr.Sathe, the decline in fishing was
restricted only to the area of the pillars and though Dr.Sathe
admit that when the construction activity was going on, there
might have been some impact on fishing as the catch continued
to drip apart, but now, with sufficient space being available
between the pillars from which the boats can pass, there is no
difficulty in fishing.
29. It is the contention of Dr.Sathe that, contrary to CMFRI
Report, TISS report indicates the methodology adopted to
prepare the report and Dr.Sathe is extremely critical about the
fact that the stakeholders involved were only the fishermen
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
32/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
and the analysis was carried out on the basis of a
comprehensive socio-economic and demographic profile of the
fishing families and the report was based upon the socio-
economic vulnerability of these communities despite the fact
that now they are a part of urbanization. It is his specific
contention that the Fishing Department is not at all consulted.
30. In order to appreciate the submissions, we must
reproduce and compare the relevant conclusions/observations
in the two reports.
As far as CMFRI report is concerned, it was approached
by MSRDC for conducting the impact examination of TCB III
bridge construction on fishery and fishing activities and the
objective of the study was assessing the impact of proposed
Thane Creek Bridge (TCB-III) on the fish stock and fishing
activities in the nearby areas of the project site, including the
following terms for reference :-
(a) Temporal analysis of fish diversity in the construction site of
TCB-III and its adjoining areas;
(b) Fish resources and fishery practices in the construction site
on its adjoining areas;
(c) Impact assessment of the construction of TCB-III on fishers.
We must note that MSRDC proposed the construction of the
said bridge to avoid the bottleneck of the traffic between Navi
Mumbai and Mumbai and the fishers from adjoining areas
filed suit against MSRDC for not conducting fisheries impact
assessment and, therefore, it approached CMFRI for doing the
needful.
The report of CMFRI reveal that the study was
undertaken for observation on marine fisheries diversity and
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
33/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
to assess impact of construction of Thane Creek Bridge- III on
marine fishing activities. Detailed marine fishery, water
quality data was collected and data from primary as well as
secondary sources on physical environment and marine
fisheries was collected for accounting ecological conditions and
impact of ongoing construction work of the bridge. Worth it to
note that the study period was for one year covering all three
seasons and during this period, the report state that ongoing
fishing activities were recorded during actual survey and
interviews were conducted with the fishermen and
information was gathered about their activities. Similarly, fish
samples were collected from different ongoing fishing practices
in the creek and they were transported to laboratory for
further analysis and their species were identified.
The study area indicated in the report covered an area
upto 3 km from Thane Creek Bridge on either sides, which had
the involvement of D-Dol net, G- Gill net and H-Hook fishing.
The demography of Thane Creek is very importantly
highlighted in CMFRI report, as it carried a study of several
fishing villages and also gave the data of the families and
population of fishermen and it is very important to take note of
the following aspect :-
“4.2 Demography of Thane creek:
Thane creek lies between Mumbai to Thane separating Raigad, Navi
Mumbai an parts of Thane districts from Mumbai and Thane city. It
further connects to Vasai crook (Ulhas river) near Ghod-bunder. The
creek mainly receives tidal waters from Arabian sea via Mumbai
port area and fresh waters from adjoining urban area. Along Mumbai
side of the creek fishers from Trombay, Mankhurd, Vikroli, while
from Navi Mumbai side fishers from Vitawa, Airoli, Diva, Rabale,
Ghansoli. Talavali, Kopar Khairane, Juhu gaon, Vashi gaon, Nerul,
Sarsole, Karave, Diwate and Gharapuri comes for fishing in the
creek. Details of fishers, their population and fishing crafts given in
the Table 1 Throughout the study period, we had continuous
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
34/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
interaction with the fishermen and fishermen leaders, of these
villages at the project site, in the creek, in the Vashi jetty and at the
time of their fishing operation covering dolnetters, gill netters, hook
fishers, crab trap practicing fishers, hand pickers etc. Details of
different types of fishing practices by the respective fishers from the
above villages observed during the observation days are shown in
Table 2.
Table 1. Demographic feature of Study area
Name of
fishing
village
Fishermen Fishermen Active Other
families population fishermen Fishing
allied
activities
Fishing Crafts
Full Part Motorized Non-
time time motorized
Trombay 160 669 143 29 234 57 86
Vitawa 8 24 5 0 7 0 0
Airoli 25 97 23 2 16 16 12
Diva 87 338 59 4 52 5 24
Rabale 3 7 2 1 2 0 0
Ghansoli 60 239 62 1 51 3 16
Talavali 45 170 41 6 29 0 8
Kopar 90 332 82 7 53 3 13
Khairane
Juhu gaon 120 456 132 0 130 5 18
Vashi gaon 285 1070 281 17 336 44 90
Nerul 1 4 0 0 1 0 0
Karave 143 537 105 3 98 2 86
Diwale 520 2129 399 9 541 127 228
Gharapuri 14 56 14 0 8 6 0
It is worth to note that the fishing activity is on the North
side of TCB and the South side does not involve any fishing.
The survey also included the detailed study of the fishing
practices and the report specifically identified the fishermen,
who were earning their livelihood by use of Dol net/Gill
net/hook fishing, crab trap etc. It also studied the diversity
and temporal variations in dolnet fishery catch season-wise i.e.
pre-monsoon, monsoon, post-monsoon and winter and listed
the species according to their abundance/similarity. Water
quality parameters were also checked and it was recorded that
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
35/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
there is no significant difference in the parameters’ values
within the stations for the respective seasons irrespective of
the distance. The impacts of pile driving on fishery resources
was recorded to be of temporary nature as the drilling activity
was being carried out.
Ultimately the conclusion of the report was recorded as
below :-
“CONCLUSIONS
1. Fishery practices observed during the study period was found to
be 1. Dol Net Fishing, 2. Gill Net fishing, 3. Hook fishing, 4. Crab
Trap fishing and 5. Hand picking of Bivalves. Through enquiry with
fishermen following fishing practices were recorded as 1. Barrier
net fishing and 2. Cast net fishing.
2. With respect to Dol net fishing operation no sus were observed in
the actual bridge construction site on either side up to 500 m, hence
there is no dislocation/removal of dol net sus due to the on-going
TCB-III bridge construction during the study period. Further, it was
observed that on either side of the bridge, dol net fishing operation
is going on all the seasons on the existing sus locations.
3. Gill net fishing is not a stationery fishing practices unlike dol net
fishing, therefore it can be operated anywhere in the creek
according to the availability of fishes. But due to ongoing
construction activities, gill net fishing operation within the vicinity
of the construction site was not possible.
4. Despite the on-going construction activities, Fishing by using
Hooks and crab trap were observed in the pillar construction area,
also under the old TCB-1, running TCB-2 bridges and also these
fishing operations can be continued during the post construction
phase. However, the area covered by the newly constructed pillars
will not available for these fishing operations permanently.
5. Navigation passage for the movement of fishing crafts (dol
netters, gill netters, non-motorized canoes and hook fishers) during
construction was not restricted, facilitating access to the fishermen
to fishing ground on the both sides of the proposed bridge.
6. Fish diversity recorded from the study area was found to be 66
species. Teleost is found to be 48 nos, Crustaceans 15 nos, Molluscs
2 nos, Sea snake 1 number. Fishing was observed throughout all the
seasons in the study area. No baseline data prior to the TCB-III
bridge construction is available to access the impact on the
increase/decrease of fish catch and diversity due to the
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
36/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
construction of the bridge on-going TCB-III project. Hence, this
study report will form the baseline for the future comparative
studies.
7. Turbidity during the study period was recorded for all the
seasons. Study revealed that long term elevated turbidity associate
with decreased fish richness and diversity and higher abundance of
benthic species. However high turbidity also provide beneficial
predation refuge for crabs and other benthic organisms (Lunt &
Smee, 2020). However values of turbidity cannot be attributed to
the bridge construction only. Since there are many other factors
influencing the turbidity such as domestic sewage run off; tidal
influx, runoff during monsoon season. Moreover, current study's
recorded turbidity range is from 16.10-105.7 NTU, which is coincide
with the report of NPCB of 2018 (22.6-106.9 NTU) NIO, December
2018. This clearly shows that the turbidity recorded during the
study period may not be attributed to TCB-III construction
activities only.
8. There is no observation of mass mortality of fish during the
entire study period at the construction site and its adjoining areas.
9. Underwater sound produced during the piling may result in
temporary dispersal of fishes and invertebrates from sound
source.”
31. In comparison of this report, in light of the order passed
by the Division Bench, as the report of CMFRI was not able to
quantify the amount of loss and the damage caused on account
of TCB-III project, and TISS had already assisted MSRDC in the
Coastal Road Project and submitted a report as to how it
affected the ecology and impacted the lives of those affected,
TISS was chosen as an Agency for determining the
compensation framework and to recommend the extent and
quantum of livelihood loss sustained by the Project-Affected
fishermen due to construction of TCB-III.
The report placed before us comprise of the policy
framework as well as recommendations and TISS has also
highlighted the methodology which it has adopted in drawing
the said report.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
37/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
The report has indicated that the construction of TCB
was necessitated to enhance the regional mobility within the
Mumbai Metropolitan Region and taking note of the present
scenario, it indicated that both its arms are fully operational
and the corridor is projected to carry approximately 100,000
vehicles per day, alleviation congestion on TCB-II and
reducing travel time between Mumbai and Navi Mumbai by
nearly 30%. It is also admitted that the bridge is also
anticipated to stimulate economic growth by improving
logistics connectivity between industrial clusters in Taloja,
Panvel, and the forthcoming Navi Mumbai International
Airport. The report acknowledge that since the project is
situated within an ecologically sensitive creek zone, and the
project has undergone extensive environmental scrutiny and
around 1.3 hectares of mangrove forests were diverted under
the Forest Conservation Act, with compensatory afforestation
and ongoing monitoring obligations were incorporated into the
project’s approval conditions. In addition, under the
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), the hydrodynamic
effects of the new piers, potential alterations to tidal flow and
outlined measures for mangrove regeneration and ecological
mitigation were evaluated.
32. Chapter II of the report has set out the methodology to be
adopted and this included a phase-wise study as indicated
below :-
Phases Duration
Phase 1 : Literature review and Survey Design June 2025
Phase 2 : Pilot Study and Community July 2025
Consultation
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
38/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Phase 3 : Primary Qualitative and Quantitative August-September 2024
Data Collection
Phase 4 : Data Cleaning, Analysis and Report October 2025
Writing
Phase 5 : Stakeholder Consultation and Analysis November 2025
Phase 6 : Designing Compensation Framework November 2025
and Submission of the Report
In the second phase involving Community Consultation, the
State focused on research within the lived realities of
fishermen by carrying out preliminary visits to key fishing
settlements and their associated jetties along Thane Creek to
gain first-hand insights into how the construction has
impacted the traditional fishing practices, access to fishing
grounds and daily livelihood routines.
The interactions were conducted with the object of
identifying the emerging concerns, pattern of disruption and
varying vulnerabilities across different occupational groups.
33. The next stage focused on collection of primary data
from the fishermen households affected by the project across
selected settlements in the Thane Creek and a structured
interview schedule was adopted to gather detailed information
on household demographics, fishing and allied livelihood
activities, income and expenditure patterns, fishing assets and
perceived livelihood impacts before and after the construction.
As per the report, tool also addressed access to social
protection, indebtedness, occupational shifts, and expectations
regarding compensation and future livelihood support,
providing a comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of
the project’s impacts.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
39/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
The questionnaire, which was circulated, included the
questions regarding basic profile alongwith identification of the
household amenities and assets/welfare entitlement as well as
any income earned outside fisheries-based activities. It also
collected data as regards the household finance and
indebtedness. Worth it to note that majority of the households
in the five villages were surveyed in the household survey and
very few were missed out due to non-availability for several
reasons.
This was followed by data cleaning, its analysis and
report writing. In the phase of stakeholders consultation, it is
mentioned that there was interactions with the officers from
the Department of Fisheries and the MSRDC, so as to gather
institutional insights and contextual information relevant to
the study.
34. While preparing the profile of the Project-Affected fishing
families, it is to be noted that the entire data was the one
which was collected from the fishermen i.e. the household
survey of 937 families covering a total population of 3,345
individuals and the research focused upon their religion/social
category, but Dr.Sathe would submit that there is no data
collected by TISS from Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and in fact, since they are enjoying certain social benefits, the
Corporation definitely must have maintained the data in
regards to their earnings, as the surveyed households were in
possession of ration cards and in fact, the report itself indicate
that the majority of the surveyed households possess Orange
Ration Card (BPL), 7% hold Antyodaya (Yellow Card), 13
households i.e. only 2% were above poverty line i.e. holding
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
40/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
White Ration Card and 3 households did not possess any card.
With this information being available, according to Dr.Sathe,
necessary information ought to have been collected as regards
their income from the Corporation or the Authorities which
had maintained the record of ration cards, but no attempt is
made to assess their income except the questionnaire i.e.
circulated to the fishermen.
35. We find that the report of TISS is entirely based on its
survey in form of questionnaire covering the households and
even as regards as to what type of fish is available or whether
there is a change in navigation path, the analysis is based upon
the information furnished by the fishermen. While concluding
that there is a decline in the availability of various types of fish
catch post TCB-III, which has impacted the income of
fishermen, only statement of the fishermen that this quality of
fish is not available has been accepted as gospel truth.
36. It is for this reason, the report submitted by TISS, has
received criticism not only from MSRDC, but also from the
learned Amicus.
The TISS report is accompanied with a questionnaire,
which the respondents (fishermen) was required to answer,
which led to the basic profile of the family alongwith the
information collected in regards the household details with
different columns, namely, household members, basic
amenities, sanitation, electricity, public distribution system,
household assets details (presence of refrigerator, washing
machine, car etc.), entitlements received under various
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
41/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
schemes, including Ayushmann Bharat, Laadki Bahin, Right to
Education etc.
One section of the analysis was dedicated to livelihood
and income details for non-fishing activities i.e. whether any
member of the family is in Government employment or self
employed or engaged in private job/business and the earnings
therefrom per month. Another part of the survey was
dedicated to ascertaining the type of fishing related activities,
in which the family is involved and whether there was a fishing
licence, its validity, what type of boat was being put for use for
fishing, what type of net is used for fishing etc. As far as
impact on the changing pattern of fishing on account of TCB-III
is concerned, a very perfunctory information was sought,
which is as below :-
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
42/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
37. Apart from this, a separate questionnaire attempted to
assess impact on navigation by simply asking, ‘Did you change
the navigation path for fishing after construction of TCB-III-
Yes or No; reasons for path change; how much distance
covered for fishing.”
In order to ascertain as to what was the assistance
expected by the fishermen families, section ‘J’ of the
questionnaire was dedicated to modality, seeking information
whether any interim compensation was received and inquiring
as to what shall be the mode of receiving the future
compensation and the manner in which the financial
compensation shall be paid i.e. whether it shall be a lumpsum
amount or in installments etc.
It is merely on the basis of the data, which is collected
through this questionnaire, the compensation has been
computed in chapter VI and for Direct Loss Compensation
(component A), a formula has been devised covering the
income loss resulting from the reduction in fish catch in the
region due to TCB-III and though there was no baseline for
fishing activities before the construction of TCB-III, the income
reported by the respondents (individual fisherman) during
socio-economic survey was taken as the baseline. We find this
method to be completely erroneous as what an individual
fishermen has reflected about the fish catch and his income
before the TCB-III construction began, definitely could not have
been taken as a gospel truth. In determining the component B
i.e. livelihood security compensation, we find that the
framework of Indian Council of Medical Research-National
Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) Expert Committee (2024)
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
43/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
was adopted, without any basis and the monthly living wage
and earning equivalent for a family was arrived at Rs.20,000/-
equalizing it to Rs.2,40,000/- for the initial year with an
annual accretion of 5% every year.
The component A and B were thus computed dependent
upon the fishermen category, namely, Dol/
Gill/Handpicker/Vana. The livelihood security compensation
was, thereafter, considered for five different villages; Dive,
Ghansoli, Juhugaon, Kopar Khairane, Vashigaon and the
fishing base for three categories of fishing was estimated at
240 days whereas for Vana, it was estimated as 50 days. The
livelihood security compensation was then divided into two
components; living wage being set at Rs.2,40,000/- on an
annual basis and inflated annually by 5% and the income loss
deflated annually at 17% to reflect the expected decline in
fishing revenues.
Based upon the aforesaid factor, the direct loss
compensation was worked out from 2021-22 to 2024-25 for
the four categories of fishermen and the livelihood security
compensation (LAC) was worked out for six years commencing
from 2025-26. The compensation awarded was thus the
component A+B and in aggregate for direct loss compensation
for the four categories of fishermen was approximated at Rs.94
Crore and the livelihood security compensation for six years to
be paid to the Project-Affected fishermen is approximated to
Rs.141 Crore.
38. During the course of hearing, we had the presence of
Dr.Geetanjoy Sahu, Professor & Dean, Chairperson, Centre for
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
44/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Climate Change & Sustainability Studies, School of Habitat
Studies, TISS, Mumbai, India and he has also furnished a note
explaining the compensation framework and methodology.
According to Prof.Sahu component A compensates for
measurable loss of income already suffered, but that by itself
does not restore affected families ability to maintain a
sustainable livelihood. Component B provides traditional
livelihood support to enable affected fishermen and their
families to adapt to the changed circumstances, diversify their
sources of income and achieve long-term economic stability. It
is clarified that methodology for component B is based on the
concept of a living wage, which represents the minimum
income required for a family to maintain a decent standard of
living and it would cover essential needs of a household,
including adequate nutrition, housing, healthcare, education
and other necessary day-to-day expenses.
The note also clarified that the current income of each
affected fisherman was determined by the socio-economic
survey and it was compared with the estimated annual living
wage to note that the minimum income required for a dignified
standard of living and the difference represented the
livelihood support required under component B.
39. The report of TISS, according to learned counsel
Mr.Zaman Ali for the Petitioner, has adopted a rational
methodology and he would submit that since CMFRI was
unable to quantify the extent of loss and the consequent
compensation payable, TISS was engaged as it had already
developed a methodology to assess the compensation payable
on construction of the Coastal Road. According to the learned
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
45/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
counsel, there is no data available with the Fisheries
Department regarding income of fisherfolk in the State and it
is in this background, TISS chose to have review of the
literature prevailing, including the CMFRI report and
community consultation and it collected the data by physical
verification of fish landing sites, gear repair areas, fish
segregation and drying zones etc. It also interacted with the
stakeholders, including the Department of Fisheries and
MSRDC and, thereafter, reviewed the compensation literature
and the policy prevailing for Project-Affected fishermen in
Indian Coastal States before it computed the compensation
payable for the Project-Affected fishermen due to TCB-III.
40. The learned Amicus Mr.Jagtiani, in a note submitted by
him, indicate that the study by TISS involved a mixed-method
research design integrating quantitative and qualitative
approaches to examine the extent and magnitude of loss and
damage to the livelihoods of traditional fishermen and the
crucial part of the report is, TISS discusses its method for
primary ‘qualitative and quantitative data collection’ and this
involved ‘a structured interview schedule’, which was placed
at Annexure I.
The report then analysed the data collected and it also
discus some illustrative examples of the case studies and the
interviews conducted, but the analysis was largely based on
the answers given by the Project-Affected fishermen.
Thereafter, TISS recommended a compensation framework
essentially entailing; ‘direct loss compensation’ and ‘livelihood
security compensation’.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
46/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
However, Mr.Jagtiani, who was appointed to assist the
Court, specifically pointed out in his note that the report has
suggested the direct loss compensation to be Rs.94 Crore and
the livelihood security compensation computed for six year
period, the amount of Rs.47 Crore is quoted. Very pertinently,
the learned Amicus has pointed out that TISS has accepted
that, “since there was no baseline for fishing activities and
income before the construction of TCB-III, we rely on the
income reported by respondents during the socio-economic
survey. Although the income reported by the fishermen before
the construction of TCB-III is based on their recall, we used
statistical measures to address the anomaly in reporting, as
well as the median as a central tendency to identify the income
loss experienced by fishermen belonging to different fishing
categories.”
41. In advancing his submissions on the aspect whether the
TISS Report fulfill the mandate given by this Court by its
orders dated 12/08/2021 and 02/05/2025, which expected an
expert body to scientifically (i) assess the impact and damage
of the construction of TCB III on the fishing activities of the
Petitioner and (ii) based on the impact and damage,
compensation to be determined, the note by the learned
Amicus find flaw in the report, and according to him, no
scientific tools were deployed to assess actual impact and
damage and the problem appeared became more precarious, as
there was no baseline data available to evaluate as to what was
the fish catch and fish diversity prior to construction of TCB-
III. The opinion of the learned Amicus is to be found worded
as below :
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
47/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
“30. Evidently, the tone and tenor of the extracted portions of the
Orders is that an expert body would be required to scientifically (i)
assess the impact and damage of the construction of TCB III on the
fishing activities of the Petitioners; and (ii) based on the impact and
damage, compensation must be determined.
31. The TISS Report has made an attempt to quantify the damage
and impact of TCB III but has done so by inviting from the project
affected persons, self-declarations on the loss of fish catch and
decrease in income.
32.While the effort made by TISS is not in doubt, the question is
whether inviting self-declarations from project affected persons
would fulfill the mandate of the 2 May 2025 Order appointing TISS.
33.It appears not. Self-declarations from project affected person
are possibly one factor in quantifying impact and damage. But given
the inherent risk of bias, there ought to have been some attempt
made to corroborate the numbers with official statistics available
with government bodies. Further, and more importantly, no
scientific tools were deployed to assess actual impact and damage.
34.The problem appears to be one of unavailability of baseline data,
and difficulty in deploying tools to evaluate what the fish catch and
fish diversity was prior to the construction of TCB III.
35.The question is: what is the way forward for this Hon’ble Court?
One option is to consider the approach taken in other infrastructure
projects, and possibly apply one of those approaches to the present
case.
42. With this expression of opinion, according to the learned
Amicus, it is necessary to examine the compensation
framework for other infrastructure projects and this include
the MTHL Policy, the Maharashtra State Policy and the
Compensation Policy for Project-Affected fisherfolk for Mumbai
Coastal Road Project (South) (‘Costal Road Policy’). It is
pointed out to us that every policy has its own peculiarity.
43. The learned Amicus has highlighted before us the salient
features of different polices as under :-
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
48/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
(I) Mumbai Trans Harbour Link Fisher Folks Compensation
Policy
As far as MTHL policy is concerned, he would submit that the
environment impact assessment was conducted based on the
previous baseline studies, as the policy identified the types of
fisherfolk in the vicinity of the project as (i) commercial who
reside in the villages, but do not fish in the creek area; (ii)
Artisanal who are traditional fisherfolk and (iii) Subsistence
fisherfolk who are daily fish catchers, who generally fish by
hand picking.
The MTHL policy contemplate conducting a fishing
survey in order to obtain a comprehensive socio-economic
baseline that can be used to refine mitigation measures, so as
to form the basis of the Fisherfolks Compensation Plan and the
basis of social monitoring programme for the project.
The note submitted by the learned Amicus has
summarised the MTHL policy and also set out as to how the
figures for compensation were adopted from an NGT order and
considered the period of three years to switch over to some
other location to establish livelihood. We deem it appropriate
to reproduce the summarisation of the MTHL policy, as
undertaken by the learned Amicus.
“41. The MTHL Policy identifies the specific heads of losses for
which compensation is to be given (categorized from C-1 to C-6), the
explanation for including such heads of losses and prescribes either
a fixed quantum or a formula for calculating the quantum against
each of these kinds of losses. These are summarized below:
(i) C-1 is for loss on account of remove of fishing stakes and net.
Fisher folk practicing ‘dol’ net fishing have permanent stakes (‘sus’)
in the creek that are in the vicinity of the MTHL Piers which will
have to be displaced permanently. Compensation is prescribed as a
one time payment of Rs. 5,84,000/-
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
49/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
(ii)C-2 is for loss due to decline in fish catch on account of changed
seawater current. Dol-net fishing relies on tidal currents and
operate efficiently at certain current velocities. The construction of
the MTHL priers would impede the currents and slow them down in
some places. (This finding is based on the technical study carried
out by the Central Water & Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune
on the effect of proposed Mumbai Trans Harbour Link project on
the flow conditions in Mumbai/Jawaharlal Nehru Harbour area
from tidal hydrodynamic considerations.) The reduced velocity of
the current would result in low efficiency of the dol-nets and
therefore reduce the days of fishing and quantum of fish.
Compensation is prescribed at 50% of the amount for C-1.
(iii) C-3 is for loss due to restricted movement of subsistence
fisherfolk for hand picking. Due to construction of the landward
part of the MTHL, casting yards, labour camps and access roads for
transport, these fisherfolk will be prevented from accessing their
fishing grounds in the inshore or inter tidal zones. Compensation is
prescribed at 50% of the amount for C-1. Compensation is
prescribed at 50% of the amount for C-1.
(iv) C-4 is for loss due to increased time and cost to travel to
their fishing grounds and wharfs during the construction phase of
MTHL. Compensation is to be based on average travel time as
compared to the period before construction and as determined
during construction survey at Rs. 500/ per hr. for Artisanal and
Rs. 1000/- per hr. for commercial.
(v) C-5 is for loss of fish due to increased turbidity during
construction phase. Compensation to be paid is equal to the loss of
average catch as compared to the period before construction
and as determined in during construction survey.
(vi) C-6 is for damage to fishing boats or nets during
movement of barges and vessels during construction phase.
Compensation is determined as the actual cost of damages to
Boats, Gear, etc. and for the loss of time as evaluated by the
Evaluation Committee with the Office of the Commissioner of
Fisheries/MMB
42.It is pertinent to note that figures for compensation (i.e. Rs.
5,84,000/-) was adopted from the an NGT Order (Order no.
19/2013) dated 27 February 2015. As the MTHL Policy explains:
“ the NGT has considered period of 3 years to switch over to some
other vocation to establish livelihood. The impact on fisher-folks due
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
50/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
to construction of MTHL also considered similarly. Hence, the
compensation base used by NGT has been applied being most
recent and most relevant.”
(II) Maharashtra State Policy
Recording that the compensation matrix indicated in the
said policy is borrowed from the MTHL policy, six categories of
loss have been identified, with the main object of the policy
being identified to be; types of fishing vehicles, technical
assessment and social impact assessment, baseline survey by
implementing agency, standard operating procedure,
compensation framework and grievance redressal mechanism.
The key features of the policy can be highlighted thus :-
“51. Under the Maharashtra State policy Compensation for
the various heads of losses are set out as fixed one time payments.
This is different from the MTHL policy when respect of certain
heads of losses (C-4 and C5) compensation is calculated by
comparing the pre-construction position versus the position during
the course of construction. This is explained above. Therefore,
under Maharashtra State Policy once any of the heads of losses is
established, the prescribed amount is to be paid.
52.Moreover, a key feature of both these policies is that all studies
and surveys are to be carried out prior to the start of construction
of the project. The reasons would appear obvious – it allows for
establishing of a base line against which the impact of the
construction can be compared. “
(III) Mumbai Coastal Road Policy
It is TISS, which was appointed to prepare compensation
policy for the Project-Affected fisherfolk on account of Coastal
Road Project. The objective of the study being to identify the
impact and arrive at a compensation package.
As per the note of the learned Amicus, the said policy
identified the impact of the project on the fisherfolk as (i) loss
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
51/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
of fishing area; (ii) loss of navigation; (iii) impact on navigation
and (iv) impact of incomes and livelihood. The policy applied
the following methodology :-
“63. A statistical assessment of the project affected fishfolk in
conducted using quantitative research methods. The data collected
during the surveys was analyzed to obtain the following insights:
i. Classification of the fisherfolk across roles in the value chain on
the basis of their standard of living into low, medium and high.
ii. The average monthly household expenses.
iii. Occupational assets of the fisherfolk based on their role in the
value chain.
iv. Fish catch related details before and after the Coastal Road
project commencement. This is used to determine the impact on the
income from fishing activities of the various identified players
across the value chain.
v. The Compensation Framework is based on three layers :
(i) Stochastic Impact: This is compensation based on professional
assets and livelihood expenses rather than income from fishing
activities. Compensation is paid towards damage to fishing and
professional assets. This is subject to verification and will vary case-
to-case.
(ii)Idiosyncratic Impact:
(a) This compensation based on impact on livelihood.
(b) The following steps are taken into account in order to calculate
compensation: (1) indicators for season wise income expenses
reported for fishing activities prior after commencement of the
coastal Road; (2) estimation of discounting rate for expenses to
arrive at discounting cost; (3) estimation of idiosyncratic cost by
subtracting a discounted cost from income (prior to the Mumbai
coastal Road project); (4) calculation of adjustment for current
income; (5) estimation of per boat compensation by dividing
idiosyncratic cost with a number of boats or number of Fisherfolk.
(c) The Mumbai Coastal Road Policy sets out a table (No. 6.4) where
the compensation estimates are provided based on the type of boat
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
52/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
and role in the value chain.
“TABLE 6.4 : COMPENSATION ESTIMATES FOR FISHERFOLK OF WORLI
KOLIWADA AND LOTUS JETTY
Boat/ PAF Type Nature of Impact Estimate per
(I) (II) boat/fisherfolk per
year (III)
Hodi T Rs 1,75,000.00
1 Cyl T Rs 2,29,810.39
2 Cyl T Rs. 2,99,795.11
3 Cyl T Rs. 3,29,774.62
4 Cyl T Rs. 4,15,366.99
6 Cyl T Rs. 4,56,903.68
Tandels T Rs. 1,50,000.00
Khalashis T Rs. 1,20,000.00
Castnets* P Rs. 96,600.00
Handpickers* P Rs. 97,790.00
Fishsellers T Rs 1,11,527.41
Note
*The impact of the project on Handpickers and Castnets fishers
is more or less permanent or will remain for longer duration.
Hence they should be entitled for compensation for an additional
6 years beyond the completion of marine works leading to
unhindered access to sea for fishing and allied activities.
*It is suggested that an interest as per government rules be
applied on the accumulated total compensation for the last four
years i.e. 2018 to 2022.
(iii) Livelihood enabling compensation: composition here is
towards the risks to reduction in income, employment,
employability, skilling and development of community assets.
vi. The period for which compensation is recommended across the
various players is set out :
(i) Distribution to boat owners is determined based on when the
boat was purchased. For eg. If the boat was purchased in 2019 or
before then compensation is for four year plus the period till
completion of marine works leading to unhindered access to sea for
fishing activities. For boats purchased in 2020 compensation for a
three years + the period till completion of marine works. This is
because as indicated above construction on the project had begun in
October 2018.
(ii)Distribution two Khalashi, Tandel and fish sellers shall be given
as lump sum amount for the last four years until completion of
Marine works.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
53/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
(iii) Since Handpickers and Castnets suffer permanent loss on
account of reclamation, compensation to these persons is for four
years plus completion of the project plus six additional years.”
44. In the backdrop of the pros and cons of the policies,
which are available for award of compensation, the learned
Amicus proceed on a footing that there is no baseline study
providing data prior to construction of TCB, though MTHL
policy and Maharashtra State Compensation Policy required
and was based on studies and surveys to be carried out prior to
the start of construction of the project, but at this stage, it is
not possible to have this data, and according to the learned
Amicus, absence of the baseline study before start of the
construction is a big setback in adopting the comparison
method and computing the compensation in turn.
As per the learned Amicus, the report of TISS attempting
to overcome this issue by collating the information from the
Project-Affected persons themselves in form of self declaration
on the loss of fish catch and decrease in income may not be
accepted as a reliable basis to compute compensation, as self
declarations from Project-Affected persons may be one factor
in quantifying impact and damage, giving the inherent risk of
bias and, therefore, there is a need to corroborate the numbers
against other sources.
45. It is in this background, the learned Amicus has offered
the following recommendations :-
“Recommendation No. 3:
72.Another way may be to simply adopt an ad-hoc discounting
factor which the court may find reasonable. For example, the Court
may consider that the self-declaration of income taken at 1/2 or
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
54/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
rd th
1/3 or 1/4 as more reasonably reflecting the correct
compensation amount.
73.In the Written Submissions submitted by R-8 (MSRDC), it has
suggested that data maintained by R-1 (Fisheries Dept.) may be
considered to assimilate and analyse historical income patterns for
the project affected fisherfolk.
74. The record is unclear on what the data collection and
maintenance responsibility of Respondent No. 1 is under statute or
otherwise. The question of whether this data could be used to arrive
at an appropriate discounting factor would depend on the type of
data, if any, Respondent No. 1 is required to maintain.
75.Further, in previous projects such data ostensibly available with
the Fisheries Department does not appear to have been adopted as
the sole basis for compensation either. It is pertinent to note that in
respect of previous projects such as the MTHL, the MTHL Policy
mandated an actual baseline study to the impact. Even the
Maharashtra State Policy contemplates such a baseline study. This
has been discussed in detail in a previous section of the Note.
Recommendation No. 4:
76. Respondent No.1 may be called upon to furnish the necessary
details about the kind of data its maintains pertaining to livelihood
of fisherfolk and the circumstances and purpose under statute or
otherwise under which such data is collected.
Recommendation No. 5:
77. Assuming the Court is inclined to factor in the above data and
considers appointing any committee to analyze such data in order
to determine an appropriate discounting rate, it may consider
appointing TISS on such committee along with the concerned
government authorities. Given that TISS has conducted a detailed
data collection exercise on the income of the project affected
fisherfolk, it may be equipped to contribute in the exercise to be
carried out by such committee.”
46. Responding to the recommendations by the learned
Amicus, and in specifically submitting that suitably
discounting factor may be adopted to reduce the figure of
Rs.94 Crore to reflect the reasonable amount, Mr.Ali has
submitted that TISS has already applied the discounting factor
by deflating the income loss annually at 17%
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
55/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
47. MSRDC, represented by Dr.Sathe, would submit that the
report of TISS for which the core quantification tool is
household questionnaire and it continued to being the sole
source of primary information, which is not capable of
bringing about the true data. According to Dr.Sathe, the TISS
report reveals a fundamental inherent inconsistency between
the socio-economic profile of the Project-Affected fishermen as
presented for purposes of establishing vulnerability and the
income figures attributed to the very same individual for the
purposes of computing compensation. According to him, TISS
report that the 91% of the surveyed households hold BPL
cards. Yet the case study documented by TISS in the report
assign pre-project annual income to the BPL households,
which are several multiples of any recognised poverty
threshold, and to cite an illustration, Dr.Sathe would point out
case study 1 featuring Dhananjay Motiram Mukadam, a Dol
Net fisherman of Kopar Khairane to whom TISS attributed pre-
TCB III income of Rs.26,40,000/- much over the BPL ceiling.
Similarly case study 2 featured Shatrugan Baburao Bhagat,
another Dol Net fisherman from Juhugaon, whose pre-TCB III
annual income is recorded as Rs.18,48,000/-, also over the
BPL ceiling.
Thus, according to MSRDC, TISS report itself record that
annual household fishing input expenditure is approximately
Rs.4.80 lakh for hand pickers, Rs.3.00 lakh for dol fishers,
Rs.60,000/- for Gill fishers and Rs.26.50 lakh for vana fishers
(as per table 6.3 of TISS report). The report also record that
856 out of 939 surveyed households (91%) possess BPL ration
card, but the Press Information Bureau by the Government of
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
56/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
India in its publication-India Poverty Story Transformed dated
07/06/2025 record that the World Bank has revised the
International Poverty Line to $ 3 per person per day i.e. $1095
annually and that India’s poverty rate at that benchmark
stood at 5.25% in 2022-2023. The same publication records
average annual per-capita expenditure of approximately
Rs.49,500/- in rural areas and Rs.84,000/- in urban areas.
As against these benchmarks, 91% of the BPL claimants
out of 953 persons, according to MSRDC, cannot possibly have
annual fishing-input expenditure as Rs.3 lakh, Rs.4.80 lakh
and Rs.26.50 lakh, indicating that the claimed incomes of
these persons is fictitious and imaginary.
48. According to Dr.Sathe, these contradictions goes to the
root of the credibility and reliability of the self-reported
income figures and the TISS report is entirely based upon this
data. He is extremely critical about the fact that a household
cannot be a BPL household for the purpose of establishing
economic vulnerability on one hand, but an household earning
of Rs.18-26 lakhs per annum, when it comes to claiming
compensation and the criticism of Dr.Sathe is that TISS made
no attempt to reconcile or explain this discrepancy and in
absence of any corroboration from landing registers, auction
records, or Fisheries Department data, the pre-project income
figures must be treated as unreliable and incapable of forming
the basis for a compensation award of approximately of Rs.141
crore.
49. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the report
of CMFRI as well as TISS and we agree with the learned
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
57/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
Amicus and Dr.Sathe that the report of TISS lack a clear
scientific model or objective criteria, as it has collected the
information from fishermen and applied the said criteria in
arriving at the loss caused to them and derived a formula for
computation of compensation. How fishermen or villagers are
actually impacted by TCB-III is not at all demonstrated.
The report is accompanied with the questionnaire form
and we find that the information is collected in Yes/No form
and surprisingly, when the information is filled in, TISS did not
ask for submission of any document, when a statement is made
as regards the income that was earned and how TCB-III
impacted it. The findings in the report of TISS are contrary to
CMFRI’s conclusion on localised impacts, acceptable water-
quality ranges and continued fishing on both sides of TCB-III.
TISS has constructed a narrative of sustained ‘cumulative
impact’, route curtailment and long-term decline in catch and
income, purely on the basis of the self reported claims of the
beneficiaries of compensation, which it is determined.
50. To the contrary, the study by CMFRI was carried out
consistently for a period of one year, covering all three seasons
and the study area covered a distance of 3 km from both sides
of Thane Bridge Creek site. Nine stations were fixed to
undertake detailed survey for observation of the ongoing
fishing activities in Thane Creek, collection of fish samples for
diversity study alongwith collection of water samples. Three
stations each were selected towards East and West directions
from the proposed site of bridge construction, which were
located along the proposed bridge length. The ongoing fishing
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
58/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
activities and diversity was specifically noted in the report of
CMFRI and very importantly, at the relevant time when the
pile driving was ongoing, the report analysed its impact and
noted that pile driving sounds at relatively close range of few
kilometres did not cause free-ranging cod to leave an area, but
they merely moved closer to scour-bed away from the sound
source location.
The CMFIR report carried out a detailed analysis of
community diversity to discern the species status during the
different seasons to note that the highest value of Margalef
richness was found in monsoon and lowest during winter,
indicating that monsoon season is having high species
diversity with abundances. Among the seasons, the taxonomic
distinctness was found to be lowest in post-monsoon and
highest in winter. The detailed report of CMFIR also contain a
Cluster analysis of species assemblage from dol net fishery
catch and SIMPER analysis was also carried out to identify the
species that contributed to the similarity or dissimilarity
between seasons, as it helped in supporting the reasons
obtained in the hierarchical cluster analysis. By applying
SIMPER analysis, it prepared a report showing descending
order of dissimilarity in species composition in dol net fishing,
by comparing it with other modes of fishing.
The conclusion of CMFRI clearly record that there is no
dislocation/removal of dol net sus due to the ongoing TCB-III
bridge construction during the study period and on either side
of the bridge, dol net fishing operation was carried out at all
seasons on existing sus locations.. Even the analysis reported
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
59/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
that fishing by using hooks and crab trap was ongoing in the
pillar construction area, which was also going on under the old
TCB-I and TCB-II bridges though areas covered by the newly
constructed pillars was not available for the fishing operations.
As Dr.Sathe has placed before us an image depicting the three
bridges over the creek, with the distance between the pillars,
and from the photographs placed before us, it can be easily
seen that fishing is not completely prohibited or do not become
an impossibility as the shipping boats can pass between the
pillars. However, in the report of TISS, we do not find the
practical examination of the site, but the loss is estimated
merely on the basis of the questionnaire, which is filled in by a
class of fishermen to whom the compensation is to be paid.
The compensation derived by TISS is based on unverified
self reported income and the methodology adopted by TISS
was to collect information from the survey as to what was the
income of the family/fisherman prior to construction of TCB-III
and after its construction. However, it did not bother to collect
any information maintained with the Fisheries Department or
the Corporation and as the report record that the data was
drawn from the income figures ‘reported by respondents
during socio-economic survey’, which was derived solely from
the affected fishermen even to the extent of fish catch and
what was sold resulting into income. Neither the auction
register or sale records are verified for determining the
income as the catch is sold in the market under the
supervision of Fisheries Department and it would have been
possible to collect some data from the said Department.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
60/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
We are also of the view that the mandate of TISS was to
recommend compensation for fishermen affected by TCB-III,
during construction and post completion, but TISS has
travelled beyond its mandate and has also included livelihood
security/support compensation and that too for a period of six
years and this factor being determined without assessment of
any impact on the livelihood or rehabilitation or pre-
settlement in its true sense. We are surprised to note that
TISS report has recommended a compensation of
approximately Rs.141 crore, whereas the total cost of the
project is Rs.500 crore, which is definitely disproportionate to
the cost incurred in construction of TCB-III. Apart from this,
MTHL is a 18.2 km sea bridge involving large-scale coastal
reclamation and permanent alteration of near-shore fishing
habitat across previously unencumbered fishing grounds. The
Coastal Road project similarly involved permanent land
reclamation into the sea, irreversibly extinguishing near-shore
fishing access. TCB-III, by contrast, is a 1.83 km pier-
supported bridge addition, constructed parallel to existing
structures in a corridor that has borne three bridges since
1973, with no reclamation, no coastline alteration, and (as also
recorded in CMFRI Report) continued fishing on both sides
throughout construction.
Despite this categorical difference in project character,
TISS has imported MTHL parameters into TCB-III without any
reasoned calibration. The MTHL Project compensation
reportedly amounted to a highest per capita compensation of
approximately Rs. 5.80 lakhs per Project Affected Fishermen
(per family), a project of 9.9 times the scale of the TCB-III. The
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
61/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
computation as suggested by the TISS Report amounts to
approximately 16 Lakhs per Project Affected Fishermen (per
family).
Dr.Sathe would submit that, this computation ought to be
outrightly rejected.
In fact when TCB-I and TCB-II alongwith the railway
bridge were constructed, no compensation was ever claimed.
In any case, by no means, we intent to suggest that the
fishermen, who are impacted by the project, are not entitled
for compensation, but the compensation to be awarded must be
based on identification of actually affected families and it shall
be computed on the basis of evidence based assessment of
impact. Dr.Sathe, representing MSRDC, has submitted before
us that it is not averse to paying compensation, provided by
applying an appropriate mechanism and by calculating the
actual extent of loss, the compensation shall be paid. He would
submit that MSRDC has already deposited a sum of Rs.Ten
crore, as directed by this Court towards interim compensation
and the amount has been disbursed in coordination with the
Fisheries Department, subject to the understanding that such
ad-hoc compensation is subject to final orders and does not
constitute an admission of extent of loss.
51. In light of this, since we have noted that it is very much
necessary to have the involvement of the Fisheries
Department, as it is definitely in possession of some data to
arrive at the income pattern of the Project-Affected fishermen.
Similarly, we also desire to have examined the issue of lack of
alteration of navigation, as Dr.Sathe has demonstrated before
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
62/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
us that the spans of period of TCB-III, when juxtaposed with
navigational spans of TCB-II and the railway bridge, do not
impact the fishing activity at all.
In addition, we must also note a subsequent positive
development that the State Government pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court, has also come up with a policy
through a Resolution of 09/03/2023 and the policy was
formulated pursuant to constitution of Committee under the
Chairmanship of Commissioner (Fisheries) as well as a
Committee being constituted under the Chairmanship of
Principal Secretary (Agri. and ADF Dept.) so as to formulate
the state-wide compensation policy.
With a constitution of another Committee under the
Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister (Fisheries) to take decision
on the proposed draft of State Level Compensation Policy, an
overall assessment was carried out and the Cabinet has
approved the state-wide compensation policy.
This policy focuses its attention on (1) Identification of
(impact on livelihood) fishers; (2) Type of fishing vessels and
other information; (3) Technical assessment and social impact
assessment; (4) Base Line Survey by Implementing Agencies;
(5) A Standard operating procedure; (6) Compensation to the
fishers and (7) Grievance Redressal System.
52. To achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Government
Resolution also has set out the procedure to be followed and it
contemplated securing a No-Objection Certificate from
MCZMA, CRZ and Mangrove Cell while executing
constructions projects and now it is also directed that it shall
be mandatory to carry out a social impact assessment through
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
63/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
a Government approved agency and a technical evaluation
through National Accreditation Board for Education and
Training (NABET).
The standard operating procedure is also set out, which
must be carried out before implementing the project and it
contemplate the following :-
“* Seeking advice through competent technical institutions like
CMFRI, FSI, NIO so that the construction of the project does not
affect the nearby fishing.
* To give necessary prior notice for the movement and safety of
fishing vessels.
* Avoid construction activity during the breeding season and near
the breeding area.
* To provide alternate means of livelihood.
* To constitute a separate grievance redressal mechanism
regarding the project by implementing agency.
* To arrange CCTVs for transperancy at the project site as well as
to make the project information available on the website in an
online format.”
Dealing with the aspect of the compensation to the
fishers, six categories have been identified dependent upon the
impact of intensity and it also contemplate revision in the
amount of compensation from time to time on the basis of
Consumer Prince Index, considering 2021 as the base year.
The six categories set out in the Government Resolution
are culled out thus :-
Scale Matter Compensation
Amount (Rs.)
C1 Permanent Loss of fishing area Rs.6,00,000
C2 The area within a radius of 500 mts Rs.4,00,000
from the project
C3 Loss due to restricted movement of
subsistence level fisher folk for
handpicking
Rs.2,00,000
C4 Loss of fishing time and increased
operating cost (fuel) to reach fishing
grounds due to ongoing construction
Rs.1,00,000
C5 Loss of fish due to increased turbidity Rs.50,000
during construction. This is a
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
64/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
temporary impact, causing temporary
loss
C6 Damage to fishing boats and nets due Rs.25,000
to movement of barges
53. Through the Government Resolution dated 09/03/2023,
we find that the State Government itself has now formulated
state-wide compensation policy for the Project-Affected
fishermen, which promises to pay compensation ranging from
Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.25,000/- dependent upon the impact of
intensity and in case of permanent loss of fishing area, a
lumpsum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- is declared whereas
the area within the radius of 500 mts from the project fetch a
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
With this progress that had occurred during the
pendency of the Petitions, instituted in the year 2021 and now
the State itself having evolved policy for payment of
compensation for the Project-Affected fishermen due to
construction of TCB-III and when MSRDC, the project
proponent, has already paid a compensation of Rs.Ten crores
by way of interim measure, we deem it appropriate to
constitute a Task Force under the Chairmanship of Principal
Secretary, Agriculture, Dairy Development, Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries Department, with the Commissioner
of Fisheries being the Secretary of the Task Force. Since we
have two reports before us prepared by Central Marine
Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) as well as Tata Institute
of Social Sciences (TISS), the Task Force shall comprise of two
members to be nominated by CMFRI and TISS respectively, as
we are of the view that the report of both the Agencies, with
whatever shortcomings we have noted, will definitely give
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
65/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
assistance in determining the actual compensation payable.
The Task Force shall also include the Commissioner of
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation.
We permit the Committee, which shall work as a Task
Force, to arrive at an amount of compensation payable by
taking into consideration the fact finding reports of CMFRI and
TISS, which shall provide guidance to the said Committee, but
we direct the Committee to have an assessment of the factual
situation on site before it arrive at a figure of compensation
that is payable. The identification of the families, which are
impacted, shall be undertaken with the assistance of the
Fisheries Department and for ascertaining the income loss,
which definitely would involve a herculean task, the necessary
data from Fisheries Department as well as the information
available as regards to these families and the Corporation is
also permitted to be called for by the Committee.
In addition, we permit the Secretary of the Committee to
include and have the involvement of any authority/agency,
which it deem appropriate. Needless to state that the MSRDC,
which is the project proponent, shall be an integral part of the
Committee.
We expect the Committee to determine the amount of
compensation and expect it to be in tune with the policy
formulated by the State Government.
This exercise is expected to be completed as
expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from
today, as we are of the view that fishermen community, which
definitely is impacted to some extent by construction of TCB-
III, cannot be made to wait too long.
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
66/66 J WP-2016-21.odt
With these directions, we dispose of the Petitions
alongwith all the pending Interim Application(s).
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:57:09
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)