GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.

                         [2010] 3 S.C.R. 1160


A    GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ANR.
                                   V.
     UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
                    ENVIRONMENT & ORS.
              (Writ Petition (C) No. 329 of 2008)
B
                           MARCH 31, 2010

     (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]

          Environmental law - Construction on coastal area -
C    Coastal Regulation Zone Notification declaring area upto 100
     meters from High Tide Line as 'No Development Zone' -
     Amendment to the Notification in 1994, relaxing 'No
     Development Zone' to 50 meters from 100 meters - In 1996,
     Supreme Court declaring parl of the amending Notification
D    as illegal - Effect on constructions made and on-going
     constructions by real estate owners pursuant to the plans
     sanctioned on the basis of amended CRZ Notification - Held:
    Judgment of 1996 declaring parl of the amended Notification
     to be illegal, will not affect the completed or the on-going
E    constructions being undertaken pursuant to the said
     Notification - Operation of 1994 amendment neither stayed
    by this Courl nor by Government - Thus, citizen entitled to
     act as per the said notification - Amendment was quashed
    because it would permit new constructions to take place which
F    was contrary to the provisions of Environment Act, 1986, thus,
    judgment is to be given prospective effect - Constitution of
     India, 1950 - Article 32.

       Judgment/Order - Construction of - Held: Judgment is
  to be read in its entirety - It cannot be read as a statute - It is
G to be construed having regard to the text and context in which
  the same was passed.

        Judgment - Retrospective or prospective -
    Determination of - Held: Courl is to decide on a balance of
H                                 1160
 GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1161
         INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV.

all relevant considerations - It would look into the justifiable   A
reliance on the previous position by administration; ability to
effectuate the new rule adopted in the overruling case without
doing injustice, whether its operation is likely to burden the
administration of justice substantially or would retard the
purpose.                                                           B
     The Central Government issued the Coastal
Regulation Zone Notification dated February 19, 1991 and
the area upto 100 meters from the High Tide Line was
earmarked as 'No Development Zone' and no
construction was permitted within this zone. The said              C
Notification was amended by the Notification dated
August 16, 1994 and the 'No Development Zone' was
relaxed to 50 meters from 100 meters.

     In the year 1993, the petitioner no.1-owner of land D
situated near river Zuari at Goa, obtained permission to
construct a hotel and residential complex beyond 100
meters. In view of the Notification dated August 16, 1994,
the petitioners sought permission and commenced
construction in accordance with newly approved plans. E
In 1996, this Court in *Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action's case declared the two amendments out of the six
amendments introduced by the amending Notification, as
illegal. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 filed a complaint
before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority F
regarding constructions made by the petitioners between
50 meters and 100 meters. The Additional Collector, Goa
issued a stop work order. Subsequently, the Additional
Director of the MOEF, issued a clarification that any
developmental activity which had been initiated between G
August 16, 1994 and April 18, 1996 after obtaining all the
requisite clearances should be construed as an on-going
project. Even thereafter, stop work order was not lifted.
The National Coastal Zone Management Authority
concluded that the stand taken by the MOEF was correct
                                                            H
    1162    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   and was in accordance with the CRZ notification of 1991,
    thus, 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
B   Public Interest Litigation was filed and the same was
    disposed of. The petitioners were directed to maintain
    status quo. Hence the present writ petition.

         The question which arose for consideration in the
    instant writ petition is whether the constructions made
C   and on-going constructions pursuant to the plans
    sanctioned on basis of the amended Coastal Regulation
    Zone Notification dated August 16, 1994 would be
    affected or not.

D       Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court

         HELD: 1.1. It is declared that the judgment in Indian
    Council for Enviro-Legal Action's case declaring part of the
    amending Notification dated August 16, 1994 to be illegal,
E   will not affect the completed or the on-going
    constructions being undertaken pursuant to the plan
    sanctioned under the amending Notification of 1994. The
    rule is made absolute to the extent indicated. [Para 18]
    [1182-C-D]

F     1.2. A critical study of the judgment in Indian Council
  For Enviro-Legal Action's case makes it clear that this
  Court foun·d the two out of the six amendments made by
  Notification dated August 16, 1994 in the Notification
  dated February 19, 1991, to be arbitrary and illegal and,
G 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.
  [Para 13] [1177-D-E]
H
GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1163
        INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV.

     1.3. This Court in its judgment dated April 18, 1996 A
in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action had not
specifically directed demolition of existing structures. It
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 8
Notification dated August 16, 1994 was valid and in force.
In view of the circumstances, it has become essential to
understand the real intention of this Court ingrained in the
judgment dated April 18, 1996. An order of Court must be
construed having regard to the text and context in which C
the same was passed. For the said purpose, the judgment
of this Court is required to be read in its entirety. A
judgment 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 0
observations were made. Observation made in a
judgment should be read in isolation and out of context.
On perusal of the judgment, it is abundantly clear that
even under 1991 Notification which is the main
Notification, it was stipulated that all development and E
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 F
the approval of 1991 Notification. [Para 13] [1177-G-H;
1178-A-D]

     1.4. With regard to the submission in Indian Council
for Enviro-Lega/ Action case that construction has already G
taken place along such rivers, creeks etc. at a distance
of 50 meters and more, it was observed, 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 H
    1164   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A perusal of the said 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
B 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
C prospective effect. On perusal of the judgment in entirety,
  it is abundantly clear that the judgment is in form of
  directions to· the Central Government and other
  authorities formed within the purview of Environment Act,
  1986 and those directions are to be followed in future.
D [Para 13) [1177-F; 1178-E-H; 1179-A-B]

         1.5. 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
E   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,
F   1996 after obtaining all requisite clearances from the
    concerned agencies including the Town and Country
    Planning should be construed as on-going projects and
    are not hit by the judgment of this Court dated April 18,
    1996. [Para 13) [1179-C-F]
G        1.6. While interpreting the judgment, public interest
    should be taken into consideration. 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
H
GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF 1165
       INOIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV.

to the transactions in future only. This process is limited A
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 B
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 administration of justice
substantially or would retard the purpose. All these c
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 .
                                                               0
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 E
into account in deciding whether the judgment has
prospective or retrospective operation. 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 F
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
prospective effect. (Para 13] (1179-E-H; 1180-A-E]             G

    Managing Director, EC/L, Hyderabad & Ors. v. 8.
Karunakar and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727, referred to.

    1.7. The submission that decision should not have
been taken by the NCZMA on October 30, 2007 stating that      H
    1166   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   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
B   the High Court for appropriate orders, cannot be
    accepted. The whole matter was reconsidered by the
    NCZMA pursuant to the order passed by the Division
    Bench of the High Court. The said order was never
    challenged by the respondents before higher forum and
c   by their conduct, the respondents had permitted the said
    order to attain finality. [Para 14] [1180-F-H; 1181-A]
       1.8. The submission that the construction already
  completed would not be affected in any manner by
  decision of this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
D Action's case but incomplete construction cannot be
  permitted to be completed is devoid of merits. Two
  amendments made in the year 1994 were declared to be
  illegal by judgment dated April 18, 1996. Till then, its
  operation was neither stayed by this Court nor by the
E Government. Therefore, a citizen was entitled to act as
  per the said notification. 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
F 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. [Para 15] [1181-B-D]
       1.9. The plea that the petitioner would get benefit of
G interpretation placed by statutory bodies and others
  would not get any benefit and, therefore, the petition
  should be dismissed cannot be accepted. 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
H concluded by the authority that the stand taken by the
  GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1167
          INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV.
 Mini'stry vide letters dated January 24, 2007, February 13,       A
 2007 and May 16, 2007 was correct and was in
 accordance with Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of
 1991. 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. [Para 16) [1181-       B
 E-G]

      *Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India
  (1996) 5 SCC 281, Clarified.

                       Case Law Reference:                         c
      (1993) 4 sec 121             Referred to .        Para 13
     . (1996) s sec 231            Clarified.          Para 13,
                                                      17 and 18
                                                                   0
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
 329 of 2008.

      Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

       G.E. Vahanvati, A.G. of India, Mukul Rohtagi and K.K.       E
   Vengopal, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Mohammed
   Himayatullah, Saurabh Kirpal, Rohma Hameed (for E.C.
   Agrawala), Anitha Shenoy, Noma Alvares, Mamta Saxena,
   Gopal Shankar Narayanan, Sanjay Parikh, Anish R. Shah,
-· Manjula Gupta, Mihir Chatterjee and Devdatt Kamat for the       F
   appearing parties.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. By filing this petition under Article
 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to declare    G
 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.                                             H
    1168     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A       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
B   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
C   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
D   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 18 blocks between 50 meters and .100 meters.
E   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
F   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
G   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
H   to direct the Central Government to implement notification dated
GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF 1169
INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

 February 19, 1991 by which CRZs were formed and restrictions         A
 on development were placed. The grievance made was that the
 non-implementation of the said notification had led to continued
degradation of ecology. In the said petition, Goa Foundation,
 a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960
filed an application challenging the vires of notification dated      8
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             C
 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
                                                                      0
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,           E
by judgment dated April 18, 1996 which is reported as Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1996) 5
sec   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   F
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   G
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 n0t have been uniform
basis for demarcating 'No Development Zone' and it would
depend upon the requirements by each State Authority                  H
   1170     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B Union of India as to why the construction was permitted at a
  distance of 50 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
C 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
0 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.
E
        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
F view of the contents of the said letter, a Panchayat official had I
  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
G 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
H regarding constructions made by the petitioners between 50
 GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1171
 INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

  meters and 100 meters. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Goa A
 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 B
  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 c
 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 D
 Aut'iority 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 E
 Government, through the Ministry of Environment and Forests
 ('MOEF' for short) vide letter dated January 24, 2007addressed
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 F
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 Court, i.e., from April 18,
1996. In spite of the receipt of abovementioned communication, G
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
                                                                    H
  , 1172    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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)
c addressed a communication dated March 28, 2007 to the
  Additional Collector stating that it was decided that on the
  property of the petitioner No.t, 'No Development Zone' should
  be marked at 100 meters and ~he stop work order, if any, in
  operation beyond such 'No Development Zone' should be
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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 communication, the
  Member-Secretary, Department of Science, Technology and
  Environment of Government of Goa was requested to get the
H matter examined by the Goa Coastal Zone Management
  GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1173
  INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

 Authority keeping in view the clarifications issued by the Ministry A
 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   B
 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          C
 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         D
 Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and for the State of
 Goa stated at the Bar that the State of Goa would withdraw 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   E
 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    F
 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 G
  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 H
    1174     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (201 O] 3 S.C.R.


A Secretary, MOEF to place the stand of the Environment Ministry
  of the Central Government on the record by filing an 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
B 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
c 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
0
  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
E    Coastal Zone Management Authority to consider the matter
     referred to it by the Ministry and submit a report to the Court·
     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
F   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
G   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
H   it.
  GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1175
  INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
       8. The record shows that the National Coastal Zone            A
  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 completed or was       B
  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      c
  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 Authoritywas 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
                                                                     0
  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    E
 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 properties and assets constructed or under
  construction during the period between August 16, 1994 and         F
  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 G
 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 . H
    1176    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   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
B   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
C and, therefore, feeling aggrieved by the said order, they have
  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
D 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
E Government and thereafter NCZMA after considering the facts
  and circumstc;inces 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
F a clarification that the judgment of this Court rendered in Indian
  Council for lnviro-Lega/ Action (supra) on Apt\~\1,~8. 1996 does
  not prejudice or affect either the completed cdpstruction or on-
  going construction. Under the circumstances\, .~he petitioners
  have filed the instant petition and claimed the relief to which
G 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,
H
 GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1177
 INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
                            '
has filed affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondent No.5   A
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        8
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 C
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 in Indian
 Council For Enviro-Legal Action (supra) makes it clear that
this Court had examined validity of six amendments made by D
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, E
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 F
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 G
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 understand the real intention of this
Court ingrained in the judgment dated April 18, 1996. It is weJJ
                                                                     H
    1178    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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 er·
  judgment, it is trite, should be read in isolation and out of
  context. On perusal of paragraph 10 of the judgment, it is
c 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
0 Notification of 1991 was to protect the past actions/
  transactions which came into existence before the approval of
  1991 Notification.

        In paragraph 39 of the judgment, this Court considered the
  argument proposed by the learned Additional Solicitor General
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
 GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1179
 !NOIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
                                  '
      On perusal of the judgment in entirety, it is abundantly clear A
that the judgment is in form of directions to the Central
Government and other authorities formed within the purview of
Environment Act, 1986 and those directions are to be followed
in future.
                                                                     B
     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 C
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, D
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 construed as on-going projects E
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 F
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.
(1993) 4 sec 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 G
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 H
    1180     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   which unsettles the previous position of law should be applied
    retrospectively or not. The Court would !ook 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
B   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
c   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 gennane and
    should be taken into account in deciding whether the judgment
0
    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
E   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 prospective effect.

F       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
G 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
H the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It is well to
 GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1181
 INOIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

remember that the said order was never challenged b,y the           A
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 8
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
amendme11ts made in the year 1994 were declared to be
illegal vide judgment dated April 18, 1996. Till then, its operation C
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 l/\/as
declared to be illegal by this Court. Therefore, notwithstanding
the fact that part of the amending notification was declared D
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 E
 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 F
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 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 G
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.
                                                                    H
    1182     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A        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
s   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.
C   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
    said Notification The rule is made absolute to the extent
D   indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

    N.J.                               Writ Petition Partly allowed.