Coastal development guidelines lacked force of law and could not justify demolition under later environmental rules.

Executive coastal development guidelines and related administrative instructions bind citizens only when they have the form of law, contain a clear mandate, and are duly authenticated and made public in the manner required by Article 77. The Court found the pre-1991 materials relied on by the Union and the State were only opinions, suggestions, or administrative directions, lacking statutory source and proper promulgation, so they could not be enforced against the appellants. It also held that the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the CRZ notification could not be applied retrospectively to justify demolition orders based on those earlier non-statutory guidelines.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-1991 coastal development guidelines and related executive instructions could be treated as law or enforced against the appellants so as to justify demolition of the constructions.

Analysis: The challenge turned on whether the executive guidelines, letters and administrative directions relied upon by the Union and the State had the force of law before the Coastal Regulation Zone notification came into force. The Court held that a governmental policy or guideline can bind citizens only if it has the form of law, contains a clear mandate and is duly authenticated and made public in the manner required by Article 77. The materials relied upon in support of enforcement were found to be in the nature of opinions, suggestions or administrative instructions, lacking the necessary promulgation, authentication and statutory source. The Court further held that the environmental regime under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the CRZ notification could not be used retrospectively to sustain the impugned demolition orders on the basis of earlier non-statutory guidelines.

Conclusion: The pre-1991 guidelines were not enforceable as law against the appellants and could not sustain the demolition orders.

---