CT Gen Stat § 4-175 (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 4 - Management of State Agencies|Chapter 54 - Uniform Administrative Procedure Act|Section 4-175 - Declaratory judgment action to determine validity of a regulation or applicability of a statute, regulation or final decision.

 (a) If a provision of the general statutes, a regulation or a final decision, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff and if an agency (1) does not take an action required by subdivision (1), (2) or (3) of subsection (e) of section 4-176, within sixty days of the filing of a petition for a declaratory ruling, (2) decides not to issue a declaratory ruling under subdivision (4) or (5) of subsection (e) of said section 4-176, or (3) is deemed to have decided not to issue a declaratory ruling under subsection (i) of said section 4-176, the petitioner may seek in the Superior Court a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the regulation in question or the applicability of the provision of the general statutes, the regulation or the final decision in question to specified circumstances. The agency shall be made a party to the action.(b) When the action for declaratory judgment concerns the applicability or validity of a regulation, the agency shall, within thirty days after service of the complaint, transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the regulation-making record relating to the regulation. The court may order the agency to transcribe any portion of the regulation-making record that has not been transcribed and transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the transcription. By stipulation of all parties, the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs.(1971, P.A. 854, S. 10; P.A. 73-620, S. 7, 19; P.A. 76-436, S. 251, 681; P.A. 78-280, S. 5, 127; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; 88-317, S. 9, 107.)History: P.A. 73-620 included regulations and agency orders, deleting references to rules and changed basis for rendering declaratory judgments; P.A. 76-436 replaced court of common pleas with superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-280 replaced “Hartford county” with “the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain”; P.A. 88-230 proposed to replace reference to “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford” effective September 1, 1991, but said reference was deleted by P.A. 88-317; P.A. 88-317 designated former provisions as Subsec. (a), amended Subsec. (a) to allow action re applicability of provision of general statutes and to substantially revise agency action or inaction required before declaratory judgment may be sought and added Subsec. (b) re transmission of regulation-making record to court, effective July 1, 1989, and applicable to agency proceedings commencing on or after that date.Jurisdiction under section which specifically provides for declaratory judgments under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act depends on whether plaintiff's rights or privileges have been threatened or impaired. 165 C. 448. Cited. 171 C. 691; 172 C. 263; 173 C. 352; 178 C. 586; 183 C. 76; 186 C. 153; 191 C. 173; 192 C. 460; 194 C. 165; 197 C. 554; 199 C. 609; 204 C. 67; 207 C. 346; 208 C. 663; 211 C. 436; 214 C. 256; 215 C. 616; 218 C. 335; 219 C. 520; 222 C. 414; 239 C. 32; Id., 124; Id., 599. Declaratory judgment procedures under section and Sec. 4-176 may not be used to bypass obligation to exhaust remedies in context of pending administrative proceeding; issuance of second chance notice under Sec. 4-182(c) does not on its own constitute institution of agency proceedings that would give plaintiff access to administrative remedy. 315 C. 196.Cited. 1 CA 1; 6 CA 723; 17 CA 17; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 570; 34 CA 123. Court found no requirement that prisoner have a liberty interest before he can seek a determination as to validity of agency regulation that he claims interferes with or impairs or threatens to interfere with or impair his legal rights or privileges. 64 CA 258. Owner of land abutting property on which Department of Public Health recommended installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system does not have standing to challenge recommendation since no statute, regulation or decision applied to the facts. 65 CA 201. Jurisdictional challenges are within the purview of administrative agency and there exists no broad exception to the exhaustion requirement for challenges to the jurisdiction of an administrative agency; plaintiff was obligated to raise its challenge to the jurisdiction of the commission in the pending administrative proceedings and, if necessary, an appeal pursuant to Sec. 4-183 or a subsequent declaratory petition pursuant to Sec. 4-176. 180 CA 478.Procedure to challenge regulation. 32 CS 153. Cited. 33 CS 86; 35 CS 13; 39 CS 99; Id., 462.