Disposal of PIL regarding disaster compensation upon State's verification and processing of all pending claims.

Two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed raising grievances regarding the inadequate award of compensation to victims of torrential rains that occurred on June 24, 2015, in Gujarat

Petitioners alleged that many eligible persons were either underpaid or entirely deprived of benefits under the government’s relief policy

On December 23, 2015, the High Court issued an interim order directing the District Collector and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to provide a forum for victims to submit claims and maintain separate registers for such applications

In July 2026, the District Collector, Amreli, filed an affidavit detailing the compliance of these directions

1. Whether the State authorities complied with the court's interim directions to establish a mechanism for receiving and adjudicating compensation claims from disaster victims

2. Whether any further directions or adjudication are required in the PILs given the subsequent actions taken by the District Collectorate

The court applied the principles of disaster management and state liability for compensation as governed by Government Resolution dated April 27, 2015, which notified the policy for extending benefits (death, poultry loss, house damage, land erosion, etc.) to natural calamity sufferers

Procedurally, the court utilized the "Ombudsman" mechanism through the District Legal Services Authority, as previously established in Bipinchandra J Diwan v. State of Gujarat (2001) regarding earthquake victims, to assist marginalized citizens in pursuing legal aid and administrative relief

The court evaluated the comprehensive affidavit filed by the District Collector, Amreli, which demonstrated that a press note was published twice in vernacular newspapers to invite claims

The authorities processed 45,008 applications totaling a claim amount of approximately ₹240.94 Crores

The Collectorate’s analysis revealed that 30,504 applicants were ineligible, 11,296 had already been paid, and others were rejected or from non-affected areas

The court noted that 217 survey teams had conducted door-to-door assessments to ensure policy implementation. Consequently, the court reasoned that since the mechanism for claim submission and processing had been effectively executed, the systemic grievances raised in the PILs were addressed.

The petitions were disposed of with the observation that individual applicants who remain aggrieved retain the liberty to raise their specific grievances before the appropriate authorities