Prospective invalidation of a regulatory amendment leaves lawful completed and ongoing constructions undisturbed

A judgment striking down a regulatory amendment was construed as operating prospectively, so it did not unsettle completed or on-going constructions lawfully sanctioned and commenced under the amendment before it was invalidated. The earlier ruling was read in its text and context, with emphasis that it did not direct demolition of existing structures or address projects already completed or in progress under valid approvals. The Ministry's clarification and the coastal authority's view were treated as consistent with that prospective approach. Constructions initiated or completed under the 1994 amendment were therefore not affected by the 1996 decision, and declaratory relief was available on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the judgment striking down part of the Coastal Regulation Zone amending notification of 1994 affected completed or on-going constructions sanctioned and commenced under that notification before the amendment was invalidated.

Analysis: The judgment construing the earlier decision held that the 1996 ruling invalidated the offending part of the amending notification prospectively and did not operate to unsettle past transactions. It emphasised that the earlier judgment did not order demolition of existing structures, did not address the fate of constructions already completed or in progress under valid sanctions, and had to be read in its text and context. The clarification issued by the Ministry and the view of the coastal zone authority were treated as consistent with that prospective understanding. On that basis, constructions initiated or completed under the 1994 amendment before it was struck down were held not to be hit by the 1996 decision.

Conclusion: The completed and on-going constructions pursuant to the 1994 amending notification were held not to be affected by the 1996 judgment, and the petitioners were entitled to the declaration sought.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment striking down a regulatory amendment will not retrospectively disturb completed or on-going actions lawfully undertaken under that amendment unless the judgment expressly so provides; the earlier law may be treated as having prospective effect where the text, context, and public interest so require.

---