Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.329 OF 2008

Goan Real Estate &  Construction Ltd. & Anr.      … Petitioners  

Versus

Union of India through Secretary,  Ministry of Environment & Ors.      … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

J.M. Panchal, J.

1. By  filing  this  petition  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to declare that the  

building  plans  sanctioned  and constructions  made  and on-

going constructions pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone  

Notification  dated  February  19,  1991  as  amended  by  the  

Notification  dated  August  16,  1994  issued  by  the  Central  

Government are valid.

2. The relevant facts emerging from the records of the case  

are as under :

The Petitioner  No.1 is  owner  of  the land situated near  

river Zuari at Goa.  It submitted plans in the year 1993 for  

construction of a hotel and residential complex.  The Central  

Government,  through  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests  

(‘MOEF’,  for  short),  issued  Coastal  Regulation  Zone  

Notification  dated  February  19,  1991  in  exercise  of  powers  

under Rule 5(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.  

As per the said notification, the area upto 100 meters from the  

High Tide Line was earmarked as ‘No Development Zone’ and  

no  construction  was  permitted  within  this  zone  except  for  

repairs etc.  However, the Central Government issued another  

notification on August 16, 1994 amending notification dated  

February 19, 1991 and relaxing the ‘No Development Zone’ to  

50 meters from 100 meters.  In view of the said relaxation, the  

petitioners who had earlier obtained construction permissions  

in  respect  of  a  project  beyond  100  meters,  submitted  an  

additional  proposal  to  the  Panchayat  of  Village  Curca,  

Bambolim & Taloulim, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa for construction of  

2

18 blocks between 50 meters and 100 meters.   The Village  

Panchayat  referred  the  matter  to  the  Town  and  Country  

Planning Authority, as required under the Rules for technical  

evaluation.   The  Town  and  Country  Planning  Authority  

approved  the  abovementioned  additional  construction  to  be  

made between 50 meters and 100 meters vide order dated July  

31, 1995.  Based on this approval, vide its order dated July  

31,  1995,  the  Village  Panchayat  sanctioned  the  plans  and  

granted  permission  to  construct.   It  is  the  case  of  the  

petitioners  that  they  had  commenced  construction  in  

accordance with newly approved plans which were revalidated  

from time to time and are valid till this date.  

3. An NGO by the name of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal  

Action  filed  a  public  interest  litigation  in  this  Court  under  

Article  32  of  the  Constitution  against  the  Union  of  India  

making prayer to direct the Central Government to implement  

notification  dated  February  19,  1991  by  which  CRZs  were  

formed  and  restrictions  on  development  were  placed.   The  

grievance made was that the non-implementation of the said  

notification had led to continued degradation of ecology.  In  

3

the said petition, Goa Foundation, a society registered under  

the  Societies  Registration  Act,  1960  filed  an  application  

challenging the vires of notification dated August 16, 1994 by  

which  main  notification  dated  February  19,  1991  was  

amended.   This  Court  took  into  consideration  the  salient  

features of the main notification dated February 19, 1991 and  

noticed that the said notification was issued to ensure that the  

development activities were consistent with the environmental  

guidelines for beaches and coastal areas and, therefore, by the  

said Notification, restrictions on the setting up of industries  

which had detrimental effect on the coastal environment were  

imposed.  The Court thereafter proceeded to examine validity  

of notification dated August 16, 1994.  After noticing that six  

amendments were made in the main notification, this Court  

found  that  reduction  of  the  ban  on  construction  from 100  

meters to 50 meters was illegal and power given to the Central  

Government  for  relaxation of  developmental  activities  in the  

entire  6,000  kilometers  long  coast  line  was  unbridled  and  

capable of being abused.  Thus, by judgment dated April 18,  

1996  which  is  reported  as  Indian  Council  for  Enviro-Legal  

4

Action vs.  Union  of  India, (1996)  5  SCC  281,  the  

abovementioned two amendments were held to be bad in law  

by this Court.  From the final directions given by this Court in  

paragraph 47 of  the judgment,  it  is  evident that this Court  

partly accepted the petition by striking down two amendments  

which were introduced by notification dated August 16, 1994.  

From paragraph 39 of the judgment, it transpires that during  

the  course  of  arguments,  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General of India brought to the notice of this Court, the fact  

that construction had already taken place along such rivers,  

creeks etc. at a distance of 50 meters and more.  This Court  

observed  that  there  could  not  have  been uniform basis  for  

demarcating ‘No Development Zone’ and it would depend upon  

the requirements by each State Authority concerned in their  

own management plan, but no reason had been given as to  

why in relation to tidal rivers, there was a reduction of the ban  

on construction from 100 meters to 50 meters.  This Court  

also took into consideration the fact that no explanation had  

been given in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India  

as to why the construction was permitted at a distance of 50  

5

meters and more along rivers, creeks etc.  This Court found  

that reduction of the ban on construction from 100 meters to  

50 meters would permit new constructions to take place and,  

therefore, the reduction could not be regarded as a protection  

only to the existing structures.  Further,  this Court  noticed  

that  there  was  absence  of  a  categorical  statement  in  the  

affidavit  to  the  effect  that  such  reduction  would  not  be  

harmful or result in serious ecological imbalance.  The Court  

expressed its inability to conclude that the amendment was  

made in the larger public interest  and was valid.   The said  

amendment  was  held  to  be  contrary  to  the  object  of  the  

Environment Act and found not to have been made for any  

valid  reason.   Thus,  the  two  amendments  out  of  six  

amendments  introduced  by  the  amending  Notification  were  

declared to be illegal.   

4. From the  record,  it  becomes  clear  that  the  petitioners  

had  made  an  application  to  the  Panchayat  to  inspect  the  

construction made on Survey No.12/1 and 99/2 which were  

stretches of lands lying between 50 meters and 100 meters.  In  

view of the contents of the said letter, a Panchayat official had  

6

inspected the site on September 25, 1996 and prepared a site  

inspection  report.   The  said  report  indicated  that  the  

petitioners had completed foundation work up to the plinth  

level and in some of the areas of the property, the construction  

work of the building was complete and ready for occupation.

5. However,  People’s  Movement  for  Civic  Action,  i.e.,  

Respondent  No.4 herein made a complaint to the local  Goa  

Coastal Zone Management Authority, i.e., the respondent No.3  

regarding constructions made by the petitioners between 50  

meters and 100 meters.  Pursuant to the said complaint, the  

Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on October 22, 2006  

issued communication through its Secretary, to the Additional  

Collector stating that on a joint inspection of the site at Survey  

Nos.99/2,  12/1 and 96,  it  was found that the construction  

work was going on in violation of CRZ Guidelines inasmuch as  

construction was made between 50 meters to 100 meters of  

‘High  Tide  Line’.   By  the  said  letter,  the  respondent  No.3  

requested  the  Additional  Collector  to  ascertain  whether  

clearance  under  CRZ  had  been  obtained.   On  October  22,  

2006, an order was passed by the Collector, North Goa District  

7

directing the petitioner  to  stop the  construction at  the site.  

Based on a complaint by Goa Bachao Abhiyan to the Chief  

Secretary  regarding  alleged  violation  of  CRZ  norms,  the  

Additional Collector, North Goa issued a stop work order dated  

December 22, 2006 and directed the Police and Town Planning  

Authority to maintain the status quo at the site.  On December  

28, 2006, petitioner No.1 made a representation to the MOEF  

to issue clarification that the project of the petitioner No.1 was  

an on-going project and as the same was sanctioned according  

to the  rules  and regulations then applicable,  the stop work  

notice  by  the  Additional  Collector  was  illegal.   The  Central  

Government, through the Ministry of Environment and Forests  

(‘MOEF’  for  short)  vide  letter  dated  January  24,  2007  

addressed to the petitioner with copy to the Director and Joint  

Secretary,  Department  of  Science,  Technology  and  

Environment,  Government  of  Goa,  clarified  that  new  

developmental activities to be carried out in the zone between  

50 meters and 100 meters in the High Tide Line along with  

inland tidal water bodies would attract the provisions of CRZ  

notification of 1991 from the date of the order of the Supreme  

8

Court,  i.e.,  from April  18,  1996.   In  spite  of  the  receipt  of  

abovementioned  communication,  the  Goa  Coastal  Zone  

Management Authority did not act upon the directions issued  

by the MOEF.  Therefore,  the Petitioner  No.1 made another  

representation to the Central  Government with a request to  

issue  necessary  clarifications  to  the  authorities.   A  further  

clarification  dated  February  13,  2007  was  issued  by  the  

Additional  Director  of  the  MOEF.   In  the  said  clarification,  

earlier communication dated January 24, 2007 was referred to  

and it was clarified that any developmental activity which had  

been initiated between August 16, 1994 and April  18, 1996  

after  obtaining  all  the  requisite  clearances  from  concerned  

agencies including the Town and Country Planning Authority  

should be construed as an on-going project.  Even after this  

clarification,  the  stop  work  order  was  not  lifted.   The  Goa  

Coastal  Zone  Management  Authority  (‘GCZMA’,  for  short)  

addressed  a  communication  dated  March  28,  2007  to  the  

Additional  Collector  stating that  it  was decided that  on the  

property of the petitioner No.l, ‘No Development Zone’ should  

be marked at 100 meters and the stop work order, if any, in  

9

operation  beyond  such  ‘No  Development  Zone’  should  be  

vacated.  On receipt of communication dated March 28, 2007  

from Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, the Additional  

Collector,  Goa,  passed  an  order  dated  May  23,  2007  

purporting to vacate the stop work order dated December 12,  

2006  but,  in  fact,  permitting  the  construction  beyond  100  

meters and not 50 meters.  The petitioners, therefore, made  

third  representation  to  MOEF and  requested  to  issue  fresh  

clarifications.  The petitioners had also annexed copy of the  

letter  dated  March  28,  2007  addressed  by  the  G.C.Z.M.  

Authority to the Additional Collector.  On receipt of the said  

representation,  the  MOEF,  Government  of  India,  issued  

clarification dated May 16, 2007.  A reference was made to its  

earlier  letter  dated  February  13,  2007,  it  was  mentioned  

therein that it was not clear as to why GCZMA had not taken  

into consideration the clarification dated February 13, 2007 of  

MOEF before addressing letter dated March 28, 2007 to the  

Additional Collector, Goa in relation to the development made  

in  property  bearing Survey No.12/1 (pt.)  12/2 and 99/2 of  

Village  Bambolim  Taluka  Tiswadi,  Goa.   By  the  said  

10

communication,  the  Member-Secretary,  Department  of  

Science, Technology and Environment of Government of Goa  

was requested to get the matter examined by the Goa Coastal  

Zone Management Authority keeping in view the clarifications  

issued by the Ministry vide letter dated February 13, 2007.   

6. In spite of the receipt of the communication from MOEF,  

the stop work orders were not lifted and allowed to operate.  

Therefore, the petitioners filed writ petition No.365 of 2007 in  

the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the stop work  

orders dated December 22, 2006 and May 23, 2007 passed by  

the Additional Collector, Goa.   During the course of hearing of  

the  writ  petition  on  July  24,  2007,  the  learned  Additional  

Solicitor General appearing for the MOEF made a statement  

before the Court that from the records it was clear that the  

project  of  the  petitioners  had  been  treated  by  the  Central  

Government acting through the MOEF as an on-going project.  

In  view  of  this  statement  made  on  behalf  of  the  Central  

Government, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the  

Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and for the State of  

Goa stated at the Bar that the State of Goa would withdraw  

11

the stop work orders dated December 22, 2006 and May 23,  

2007 to the extent, they imposed an embargo on construction  

between 50 meters and 100 meters and that the withdrawal  

letter would be issued to the petitioners within a period of one  

week from the date of the order.  The record shows that the  

statements made at the Bar by the learned Additional Solicitor  

General and learned Advocate-General  were accepted by the  

Court and, therefore, the petitioners had not pressed the said  

writ petition.  The writ petition was accordingly disposed of by  

order dated July 24, 2007.

7. The  record  further  shows  that  thereafter  writ  petition  

No.403 of 2007 was filed by People’s Movement for Civic Action  

and Goa Foundation, a society registered under the Societies  

Registration Act challenging the order dated October 8, 1998  

passed by the Panchayat of Curca, bambolim and Talaulim,  

Goa by which permission to construct was renewed in favour  

of the petitioners.  Initially, the Court had directed the parties  

to  maintain  status  quo.   The  Court  had  also  directed  the  

Secretary,  MOEF  to  place  the  stand  of  the  Environment  

Ministry of the Central Government on the record by filing an  

12

affidavit.   The record shows that  in  compliance  of  the  said  

direction, an affidavit affirmed on September 12, 2007 by Mr.  

K.  Uppily,  Additional  Director  in  the  MOEF,  Government  of  

India was filed expressing the view of the Ministry that any  

developmental  activity  which  had  been  initiated  between  

August  16,  1994 and April  18,  1996 after  obtaining all  the  

requisite clearances from the concerned agencies including the  

Town and Country Planning Development should be construed  

as  an  on-going  project.   In  the  said  affidavit,  it  was  also  

mentioned that the Ministry had decided to place the matter  

before the National Coastal Zone Management Authority in its  

meeting which was scheduled to be held in October 2007 and  

the contentions of the People’s Movement for Civic Action etc.  

as  also  the  communications  dated  July  17,  2007  of  Goa  

Coastal  Zone Management Authority  and the contentions of  

the petitioners would be examined by the said Authority.   

In the light of the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed on  

behalf  of the Ministry,  the High Court directed the National  

Coastal  Zone Management  Authority  to  consider  the  matter  

referred to it by the Ministry and submit a report to the Court  

13

after giving a personal hearing to all  the concerned parties.  

The  High  Court  clarified  that  the  National  Coastal  Zone  

Management  Authority  should  decide  the  matter  on  merits  

without  being  influenced  in  any  way  by  the  filing  of  writ  

petition or the observations made by the Court.  It was also  

clarified that if the order was adverse to the petitioners, they  

would be at liberty to challenge the same.  Further, the Goa  

Coastal Management was directed to take action in accordance  

with law subject to the rights of the petitioners to challenge  

the said report.  The Court further stated in its order that the  

Peoples Movement for Civic Action and Goa Foundation would  

also be at liberty to move the court for appropriate relief in  

case  the  report  of  National  Coastal  Zone  Management  

Authority was adverse to it.

8. The  record  shows  that  the  National  Coastal  Zone  

Management Authority considered the matter in detail in its  

meeting  held  on  October  30,  2007.   The  Authority,  after  

detailed  discussions,  was  of  the  view  that  there  would  be  

several cases all over the coast wherein there would be some  

instances  indicating  that  constructions  work  had  been  

14

completed  or  was  in  progress  pursuant  to  the  Notification  

dated August 16, 1994.  Therefore, the Authority concluded  

that the stand taken by the MOEF vide letters dated January  

24, 2007, February 13, 2007 and May 16, 2007 was correct  

one and was in accordance with the CRZ notification of 1991.  

The Authority also noticed that the clarification given by the  

MOEF was applicable to all cases in the coastal areas of the  

country.  What was reported by the said Authority was that  

this  Court  while  setting  aside  two  out  of  six  amendments  

dated August 16, 1994 in Writ Petition No.664 of 1993 had not  

passed  any  orders  with  regard  to  cases  in  which  the  

construction  had  been  completed  or  was  in  progress  and,  

therefore, all the properties and assets constructed or under  

construction in the period between August 16, 1994 and April  

18, 1996 during which the set back line was changed from  

100 meters to 50 meters was valid.  The Authority noted that if  

it would have been otherwise, this Court would have passed  

specific orders.  The Authority ultimately expressed the view  

that the interpretation of phrase ‘on-going’ by the Goa Coastal  

Zone  Management  Authority  was  incorrect  and  all  the  

15

properties  and  assets  constructed  or  under  construction  

during the period between August 16, 1994 and April 18, 1996  

should be maintained and should not be destroyed.   

Thereafter,  the public interest Litigation was placed for  

final  hearing before  the High Court.   The Court  was of  the  

opinion  that  as  the  Supreme  Court  had  struck  down  the  

notification  amending  the  earlier  notification,  ordinarily  all  

activities between 50 meters and 100 meters from the high  

tide line must cease.  Having expressed this view, the Court  

considered  the  report  of  the  National  Coastal  Zone  

Management Authority (‘NCZMA’  for  short)  and noticed that  

the  said report/order  was not  challenged by the petitioners  

who  had  instituted  the  public  interest  litigation.   On  the  

request of the petitioners, the Court permitted them to amend  

the petition so as to enable them to challenge the order of the  

NCZMA.  The said order permitting the original petitioners to  

amend the petition was challenged by the present petitioners  

by filing SLP (C) No.16728 of 2008 before this Court.

9. The petitioners were also directed to maintain status quo  

and, therefore, feeling aggrieved by the said order, they have  

16

preferred SLP (C) No.19767 of 2008 which is also heard along  

with this writ petition.

10. The  case  of  the  petitioners  is  that  this  Court  in  its  

judgment dated April  18,  1996 had not specifically  directed  

demolition of the existing structures nor the directions of the  

Court  had  affected  the  on-going  constructions  which  were  

coming up as per plans sanctioned during the period when the  

said amending notification dated August 16, 1994 was valid  

and  in  force.   It  is  mentioned  by  the  petitioners  that  the  

Central Government and thereafter NCZMA after considering  

the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and  in  the  larger  

public  interest  had  concluded  that  the  stand  taken  by  the  

MOEF vide its letters dated January 24, 2007, February 13,  

2007 and May 16, 2007 was correct and, therefore, a case is  

made out for issuance of a clarification that the judgment of  

this Court rendered in  Indian Council for Inviro-Legal Action  

(supra) on April 18, 1996 does not prejudice or affect either  

the completed construction or on-going construction.   Under  

the  circumstances,  the  petitioners  have  filed  the  instant  

17

petition  and  claimed  the  relief  to  which  reference  is  made  

earlier.

11. On  service  of  notice,  Dr.  A  Senthil  Vel,  Additional  

Director, Ministry of Environment and Forest has filed reply  

affidavit and supported the case of the petitioners.  After filing  

of Additional Affidavit by the petitioners, Mr. Claude Alvares,  

has filed affidavit  in opposition on behalf  of  the respondent  

No.5  whereas  affidavit  in  rejoinder  is  filed  by  Mr.  Vijender  

Kumar Sharma, on behalf of the petitioners.

12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties  

at great length and in detail.  This Court has also considered  

the  documents  forming  part  of  the  petition  and  other  

proceedings.

13. The question which falls for consideration is whether the  

constructions  made  or  on-going  pursuant  to  the  plans  

sanctioned on the basis of Notification dated August 16, 1994  

would be affected or not.  For this purpose, it will be necessary  

to  construe  the  judgment  rendered  in  Indian  Council  for  

Enviro-Legal Action (supra).  A critical study of the judgment  

18

in  Indian  Council  For  Enviro-Legal  Action (supra)  makes  it  

clear that this Court had examined validity of six amendments  

made by Notification dated August 16, 1994 in the Notification  

dated February 19,  1991.   Two out of  the  six  amendments  

were  found  by  this  Court  to  be  arbitrary  and  illegal  and,  

therefore,  they  were  struck  down.   When  one  part  of  the  

Notification was found to be legal and another part of the said  

Notification  to  be  bad  in  law,  it  would  not  be  proper  to  

construe the judgment affecting past transactions.

Tenor of the judgment indicates that this Court intended  

to give prospective effect to the judgment dated April 18, 1996  

rendered in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action  

(supra).  It is to be noted that this Court in its judgment dated  

April  18,  1996  had  not  specifically  directed  demolition  of  

existing structures.  It is also pertinent to note that this Court  

had  not  stated  as  to  what  will  be  the  fate  of  ongoing  

constructions  which  were  coming  up  or  on-going  as  per  

sanctions  during  the  period  when  the  said  amending  

Notification dated August 16, 1994 was valid and in force.  In  

view  of  the  circumstances,  now it  has  become  essential  to  

19

understand the real intention of this Court ingrained in the  

judgment dated April 18, 1996.  It is well settled that an order  

of  Court  must  be  construed  having  regard  to  the  text  and  

context in which the same was passed.  For the said purpose,  

the  judgment  of  this  Court  is  required  to  be  read  in  its  

entirety.  A judgment, it is well settled, cannot be read as a  

statute.  Construction of a judgment should be made in the  

light  of  the  factual  matrix  involved  therein.   What  is  more  

important is to see the issues involved therein and the context  

wherein the observations were made.  Observation made in a  

judgment,  it  is trite,  should be read in isolation and out of  

context.  On perusal of paragraph 10 of the judgment, it is  

abundantly clear that even under 1991 Notification which is  

the main Notification, it was stipulated that all development  

and activities within CRZ will be valid and will not violate the  

provisions of the 1991 Notification till the Management Plans  

are approved.  Thus, the intention of legislature while issuing  

Notification  of  1991  was  to  protect  the  past  

actions/transactions  which  came  into  existence  before  the  

approval of 1991 Notification.

20

In paragraph 39 of the judgment, this Court considered  

the  argument  proposed  by  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General that construction has already taken place along such  

rivers, creeks etc. at a distance of 50 meters and more.  This  

plea was specifically answered by observing that even if this be  

so,  such reduction would permit  new constructions to  take  

place and this reduction could not be regarded as a protection  

only to the existing structures.  Thus, on perusal of the above  

statement,  it  is  clear  that  this  Court  had  quashed  the  

amendment  because  the  amendment  would  permit  new  

constructions  to  take  place  which  was  contrary  to  the  

provisions of the Environment Act, 1986 and not because of  

the  reason  that  there  was  evidence  before  the  Court  that  

constructions already made or on-going pursuant to the plans  

sanctioned on the basis of Notification of 1994 had, in fact,  

frustrated the object of the Act.  Thus, paragraph 39 clearly  

reflects intention of this Court that Court wanted to give the  

judgment prospective effect.

On perusal of the judgment in entirety, it is abundantly  

clear that the judgment is in form of directions to the Central  

21

Government and other authorities formed within the purview  

of  Environment  Act,  1986  and  those  directions  are  to  be  

followed in future.

While interpreting the judgment, it is important to take  

into  consideration  the  view  expressed  over  the  matter  in  

controversy  by  various  Governmental  Authorities  formed  

under the purview of Environment Act, 1986 to implement the  

provisions of Environment Act,  1986 although such view or  

opinion is not binding on the Court.  By communication dated  

January  24,  2007,  February  13,  2007  and  May  16,  2007  

issued by Additional Director of Ministry of Environment and  

Forests  and decision  of  National  Coastal  Zone  Management  

Authority dated October 30, 2007, it is brought on record that  

all the authorities unanimously opined that judgment of this  

Court  dated  April  18,  1996  will  operate  prospectively  and  

further  clarified  that  any  developmental  activity  which  has  

been initiated between August 16, 1994 and April  18, 1996  

after  obtaining  all  requisite  clearances  from  the  concerned  

agencies including the Town and Country Planning should be  

22

construed  as  on-going  projects  and  are  not  hit  by  the  

judgment of this Court dated April 18, 1996.

It  is  pertinent  to  note  that  while  interpreting  the  

judgment, public interest should be taken into consideration.  

In  Managing  Director,  ECIL,  Hyderabad  &  Ors. v.  B.  

Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727, this Court considered  

the  factors  which  are  to  be  taken  into  consideration  while  

giving  prospective  operation  to  a  judgment.   When  judicial  

discretion has been exercised to establish a new norm,  the  

question emerges whether it would be applied retrospectively  

to the past transactions or prospectively to the transactions in  

future only.  This process is limited not only to common law  

traditions, but exists in all jurisdictions.  It is, therefore, for  

the  Court  to  decide,  on  a  balance  of  all  relevant  

considerations,  whether  a  decision  which  unsettles  the  

previous position of law should be applied retrospectively or  

not.  The Court would look into the justifiable reliance on the  

previous position by the Administration;  ability to effectuate  

the  new  rule  adopted  in  the  overruling  case  without  doing  

injustice,  whether  its  operation  is  likely  to  burden  the  

23

administration  of  justice  substantially  or  would  retard  the  

purpose.  All these factors are to be taken into account while  

determining whether a judgment is prospective or otherwise.  

The Court would adopt either the retroactive or non-retroactive  

effect of a decision after evaluating the merits and demerits of  

a particular case by looking to the prior history of the rule in  

question,  its  purpose  and  effect  and  whether  retroactive  

operation will accelerate or retard the object of the judgment.  

The  purpose  of  the  old  rule,  the  mischief  sought  to  be  

prevented by the judgment and the public interest are equally  

germane  and  should  be  taken  into  account  in  deciding  

whether  the  judgment  has  prospective  or  retrospective  

operation.  It is well known that the courts do make the law to  

prevent  administrative  chaos  and  to  meet  ends  of  justice.  

Taking into consideration all these factors, this Court refuses  

to interpret the 1996 judgment in a manner which would give  

it a retrospective effect.  It is clear from the tenor of judgment  

and from other background circumstances, more importantly  

in view of decisions of NCZMA which is a statutory body that  

Three Judge Bench decision in 1996 case intended to give it  

24

prospective effect.

14. The  contention  of  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  

counsel  for  the  respondents  that  decision  should  not  have  

been taken by the NCZMA on October 30, 2007 stating that all  

the properties and assets constructed or under construction  

during the period between August 16, 1994 and April 18, 1996  

when the set back line stood changed from 100 meters to 50  

meters, is valid and the said authority should have directed  

the parties to approach the High Court for appropriate orders,  

cannot be accepted.  As observed earlier, the whole matter was  

reconsidered by the NCZMA pursuant to the order passed by  

the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.  It is well to  

remember that  the  said  order  was  never  challenged  by  the  

respondents  before  higher  forum and by  their  conduct,  the  

respondents had permitted the said order to attain finality.

15. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that  

the construction already completed would not be affected in  

any manner by decision of this Court in  Indian Council  for  

Enviro-Legal  Action (supra)  but  incomplete  construction  

cannot be permitted to be completed is devoid of merits.  Two  

25

amendments made in the year1994 were declared to be illegal  

vide judgment dated April 18, 1996.  Till then, its operation  

was  neither  stayed  by  this  Court  nor  by  the  Government.  

Therefore,  a  citizen  was  entitled  to  act  as  per  the  said  

notification.   This Court  finds that the rights of  the parties  

were crystallized by the amending notification till part of the  

same  was  declared  to  be  illegal  by  this  Court.   Therefore,  

notwithstanding the fact that part of the amending notification  

was declared illegal by this Court, all orders passed under the  

said  notification  and  actions  taken  pursuant  to  the  said  

notification would not be affected in any manner whatsoever.   

16. The  plea  that  the  petitioner  would  get  benefit  of  

interpretation placed by statutory bodies and others would not  

get  any  benefit  and,  therefore,  the  petition  should  be  

dismissed has no substance.  A bare glance at the minutes of  

the  16th meeting  of  the  NCZMA held  on  October  30,  2007  

makes  it  more  than  clear  that  it  was  concluded  by  the  

authority  that  the  stand  taken  by  the  Ministry  vide  letters  

dated January 24, 2007, February 13, 2007 and May 16, 2007  

was correct  and was in accordance with Coastal  Regulation  

26

Zone Notification of 1991.  What is relevant to notice is that  

the said authority has in terms held that the clarification given  

by the  MOEF is applicable  to all  such cases in the coastal  

areas of the country.  Therefore, the plea that only petitioners  

have  been  favoured  by  the  authority  and,  therefore,  the  

petition should be dismissed cannot be accepted.

17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this  

Court is of the opinion that a good case has been made out by  

the petitioners for issuance of a declaration that the judgment  

dated April 18, 1996 rendered in the case of Indian Council for  

Enviro-Legal  Action (supra)  will  not  affect  the  on-going  

constructions  or  completed  constructions  pursuant  to  the  

plans sanctioned under the amending Notification of 1994 till  

two clauses of the same were set aside by this Court.   

18. For the foregoing reasons, the petition partly succeeds.  

It is declared that the judgment dated April 18, 1996 in Indian  

Council  for Enviro-Legal Action vs.  Union of India, (1996) 5  

SCC 281,  declaring part  of  the amending Notification dated  

August 16, 1994 to be illegal, will not affect the completed or  

the on-going constructions being undertaken pursuant to the  

27

said  Notification  The  rule  is  made  absolute  to  the  extent  

indicated hereinabove.  There shall be no order as to costs.

………………………CJI.   

…………………………J. [J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi; March 31, 2010.

28