|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1975) 3 CLR 445
1975 October 27
[HADJIANASTASSIOU, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 122 AND 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
GEORGE MITSIDES,
Applicant,
and
THE CYPRUS BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
Respondent.
(Case No. 288/71).
Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation-Officers of-Interchange of duties between Heads of Radio and Television Programmes-Not resulting in any financial detriment to holders thereof-Not contrary to the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation Law, Cap. 300A or the Public Bodies (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (Law 61 of 1970) and the Regulations made thereunder.
Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation-Officers of-Schemes of service-The Corporation can by "general notes" add to or qua fly existing schemes of service-Section 10 of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation Law, Cap. 300A and the Regulations made thereunder.
Construction of documents-Schemes of service-"General notes" relating to schemes of service for posts in the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation-"Officers" in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the notes-Includes heads of divisions-Section 2 of the Public Bodies (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (Law 61 of 1970) definition of "personnel".
Schemes of service-Officers of Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation-Additions or qualifications to the schemes of service-Possible.
The applicant complains against the decision of the respondent Board to assign him the duties of Head of Radio programmes. At the material time he was holding the post of Head of Television having being appointed thereto by the Public Service Commission on April 23, 1962. (Vide pp. 448-49 of the judgment post).
In 1969 the respondent Board, acting under s. 10 of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation Law, Cap.300A, decided as follows with regard to the schemes of service:
"Schemes of Service-General notes
1. The following general conditions and requirements are applicable to all posts within the Corporation and should be considered to form an integral part of the duties and responsibilities contained in the schemes of service for all posts.
2. All officers are responsible to the Head of their Division and work under his direction, due regard being paid to hierarchy in each of the sub-sections of each Division.
3. All officers will also perform any other appropriate duties that may be assigned to them.
4 .....................................
5. All officers may be called upon to perform the duties of a relative post of comparative grade in another Division of the Corporation".
Counsel for the applicant contended:
(a) That the sub judice decision contravenes the Cyprus 20 Broadcasting Corporation Law, Cap. 300A and the regulations made thereunder;
(b) that the emplacement or transfer to the post in question instead of his own substantive post based on the schemes of service-general notes (quoted above) was legally wrong, because they do not have the force of a regulation;
(c) that the word "officers" appearing in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the "general notes" cannot be construed to include the head of a department or a Division, including the applicant or any other head of a department or Division.
Held, (I) With regard to contention (a) above:
The decision of the respondent to assign the duties of a similar post to the applicant, and/or emplace him in that post, is not contrary to the provisions of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation Law Cap. 300A or the Public Bodies (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (Law 61/70) and the regulations made thereunder, particularly so because it was not to the financial detriment of the applicant, nor was it made in excess or abuse of powers vested in such organ.
Held, (II) With regard to contention (b) above:
Although I find myself in agreement with counsel that the "general notes" cannot have the force of a regulation as such, nevertheless, I would disagree with him that they are a mere circular, because once the Corporation has powers under both the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation Law and the Regulations made thereunder, to prescribe schemes of service, the said "general notes" are considered to be as effective as any other scheme of service, because they add to or qualify the schemes of service of the Corporation (see Constantinou and Another v. Republic (1966) 3 C.L.R. 174 at p. 177).
Held, (III) With regard to contention (c) above:
(1) Having considered the words "all officers" appearing in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 it appears that if one reads also paragraph 1, then it becomes clear that because those conditions and requirements form and become an integral part of the duties and responsibilities contained in the schemes of service for all posts, inevitably, and in spite of the reference that all officers are responsible to the head of the Division, in my view it was not meant to exclude the heads of the Divisions to be called upon to perform those duties, because had it been so, the respondent would have said so in clear and unambiguous language in the said paragraphs that those conditions and requirements would not be applicable to the heads of the Divisions.
(2) Assuming that my above construction is wrong, then again having regard to the definition of the word "prosopikon" (personnel) in section 2 of the Public Bodies (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (Law 61/70), which is so wide in its effect as to include even the General Manager of the Corporation, again for this reason also the argument of counsel cannot stand and, therefore, is dismissed.
Application dismissed.
Cases referred to:
Markoullides and The Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 30;
Messaritou v. The Republic (1972) 3 C.L.R. 100 at p. 114;
Constantinou and Another v. The Republic (1966) 3 C.L.R. 174 at p. 177.
Recourse.
Recourse against the decision of the respondent Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation to assign to applicant the duties of Head of Radio Programmes.
L. N. Clerides, for the applicant.
G. Polyviou, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court delivered by:-
HADJIANASTASSIOU, J.: In these proceedings, under Article 146 of the Constitution, the applicant seeks to challenge the decision of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation (hereinafter referred to as C.B.C.) to assign to him the duties of Head of Radio programmes as being null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
The facts are these:- On March 24, 1953, the applicant was appointed by C.B.C. as a Programme Assistant. On September 1, 1953, he was promoted to the post of Head of Television Programme Manager; and on January 1, 1959, he was seconded by the Government of Cyprus to C.B.C. as Head of Television. After serving for a period of more than three years in that post, on April 3, 1962, the Public Service Commission, because of Article 122 of the Constitution, which defines "public service" as including service under the C.B.C. (Markoullides and The Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 30) made an offer of appointment to him in these terms:-
"Pursuant to section 14 (1) of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation Law, Cap. 300A, as amended by Laws 46/59, 20/60, 21/60, 27/61, 69/61 and 26/62, you are hereby offered, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the attached regulations and to the following, additional terms and conditions, employment to the permanent post of Head of Television in the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation as from the 23rd April, 1962.
Additional Terms and Conditions.
2. Salary
(a) The salary scale of the post is £ 1128 x 36-1236 x 42- 1320 but you will maintain the salary scale you now hold as a personal one and you will receive the salary of £ 1548 in the scale of £ 1236 x 42 - 1404 x 48-1596. Your next incremental date will be 1st March.
(b) Cost of living allowance will be paid at the same rate paid to permanent officers of the Republic from time to time.
3. Duties and Responsibilities
Your duties will include the usual duties of the office in which you are employed, specified in the attached scheme of service referring to your post.
4. Provident Fund
On accepting this appointment you will automatically become a member of the C.B.C. Staff Provident Fund, published in Gazette Supplement No. 3 of the 27th August, 1959, and in force with the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation.
Provided that the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation will pay to you an amount equal to your contribution to the Provident Fund, at the end of each month.
5. General
The terms and conditions offered to you will in no way be altered to your disadvantage as a result of any future decisions of the Corporation.
6. If you are prepared to accept this offer you should inform me in writing within one year from today. If you fail within one year from today to accept in writing this offer you shall be deemed to have refused it".
There is no doubt that the applicant has accepted the offer and remained serving in that post until May 15, 1971. The scheme of service in question reads as follows:-
"Head of Television Division
Salary:- £ 1128 x 36-236 x 42-1320.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Administration of the Division, preparation, planning, direction and supervision of all programmes to be televised. Such other duties as may be necessary for the proper functioning of his Division; any other duties which may be assigned to him. In the performance of his duties he will be directly responsible to the Director-General.
Qualifications required:-
(a) An appropriate University Degree or Diploma
Or
(b) A high standard of education not below a secondary school graduation together with experience in the performance of the duties required for the post
And
(c) A thorough knowledge of Greek or Turkish as the case may be and a very good knowledge of English. Knowledge of Turkish in the case of a Greek officer or of Greek in the case of a Turkish officer will be an advantage".
In the meantime, although the creation or abolition of posts continued to remain within the power of the Corporation, nevertheless, in 1967 the Public Service Law, 1967 (No. 33/67) was enacted and under this law appointments, promotions etc. were no longer within the competence of the Public Service Commission. In order to remedy this matter, the House of Representatives enacted the Public Bodies (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (Law 61/70) and according to the provisions of that law, appointments, promotions, termination of employment and disciplinary matters concerning the employees of the Corporation came within its powers. There is no doubt that the enactment of the said law was justified on grounds of necessity, and sections 2, 3 and 4 were found not unconstitutional in Messaritou v. The Republic (1972) 3 C.L.R. 100, at p. 114. Thus, it appears that the functions of the Commission, under Article 125 of the Constitution, were now exercised by the respondent.
As I said earlier, the applicant remained serving in that post, but on May 13, 1971, the Board of C.B.C. met and an extract from the minutes reads as follows:-
"Ο Πρόεδρος ανέφερεν ότι ετέθη υπ' όψιν του σκέψις του Γενικού Διευθυντού ως και σημείωμά του σχετικώς με την αναγκαιότητα εναλλαγής καθηκόντων μεταξύ των Τμηματαρχών Προγραμμάτων Ραδιοφώνου και Τηλεοράσεως κ.κ. Χαπ. Παπαδοπούλου και Γ. Μιτσίδη.
Ο Πρόεδρος εδήλωσεν ότι συμφωνεί διά την εναλλαγήν, επί τη βάσει και των βασικών στοιχείων διευθυντικών μεθόδων σχετικών με την υπό τας εκάστοτε περιστάσεις καλυτέραν δυνατήν αξιοποίησιν του ανωτέρου προσωπικού. Τα συζητηθέντα σχέδια του Ιδρύματος διά την προσεχή πενταετίαν εξυπηρετούνται επίσης καλύτερον διά της ως άνω εναλλαγής, κατέληξε.
Το Συμβούλιον, πλην του κ. Παπαγεωργίου, συνεφώνησε προς τας εκτεθείσας απόψεις, αφού ήκουσε περαιτέρω διευκρινήσεις δοθείσας υπό του Γενικού Διευθυντού. Η εναλλαγή καθηκόντων θα πραγματοποιηθή από της 1ης προσεχούς Ιουνίου".
And in English, it reads:-
"The Chairman stated that there has been laid before him both a suggestion of the Director-General and a note with regard to the need of the interchanging of duties between the Heads of Radio and Television Programmes Messrs. Char. Papadopoulos and G. Mitsides.
The Chairman stated that he agrees to the interchanging, on the basis of the principal elements of managerial methods for the best possible utilization of the higher personnel under the circumstances prevailing from time to time. He concluded that the plans of the corporation for the next 5 years are also better served by the aforesaid interchanging.
The Board, Mr. Papageorghiou dissenting, having heard further clarifications given by the Director-General, agreed with the views put forward The interchanging of duties will take effect as from the 1st June next (exhibit 5 (b))".
On May 15, 1971, the General Manager, Mr. Christofides, wrote to the applicant, informing him that he was officially undertaking the duties of the Head of Radio Programmes. The writer then went on to add that "I am expecting that in the meantime you will acquaint Mr. Papadopoulos and he will also acquaint you in such a way that the taking over will be smooth and take as little time as possible".
The scheme of service for the post of Head of Radio Programmes is as follows :-
"Duties and Responsibilities:-
Administration of the Division. Preparing, planning, direction and production of all programmes, except news, for the Greck or Turkish community and any other duties which may be necessary for the proper functioning of his Division, including writing of scripts. The performance of any other duties which may be assigned to him by the Director-General. In the performance of his duties he will be responsible to the Director-General.
Qualifications Required:-
(a) An appropriate University Degree or Diploma;
or
(b) A high standard of general education not below the standard of a secondary school graduation, together with experience in the performance of the duties required for the post;
and
(c) A very thorough, knowledge of Greek or Turkish as the case may be; a thorough knowledge of Cyprus and its affairs and a sound literary or cultural background. Knowledge of a foreign European language will be an advantage".
On July 21, 1971, the applicant, feeling aggrieved because of the alternation (enalayi) of duties, filed the present recourses, and the application was based on four grounds of law:-
"(a) That it was contrary to the provisions of Cap. 300A and the Regulations made thereunder.
(b) It was ultra vires and illegal and taken in circumstances amounting to an excess or abuse of powers.
(c) It was contrary to the provisions of the relevant schemes of service and the terms of applicant's appointment dated the 23.4.62; and
(d) that further grounds of Law would be given later, if necessary".
On October 21, 1971, in pursuance of directions of the Court, counsel filed further particulars regarding the grounds of law, which read as follows:-
"(i) No provision exists in Cap. 300A or the Regulations made thereunder to transfer or post any employee of the C.B.C. from one section to another.
(ii) Applicant was appointed to his present post by the Public Service Commission on the 23.4.62 by virtue of a letter dated the 23.4.62.
(iii) In this matter he was appointed to the post of Head of Television 'Subject to the terms and conditions in the attached Regulations' dated 5.4.62.
No provision exists in these Regulations enabling the transfer effected.
(iv) It is true that in the general scheme of service dated 1.5.69 there is a provision in paragraphs 3 & 5 which may enable the Corporation to call upon officers to perform the duties of a relative post of comparative grade in other Division.
(v) However this does not apply to the applicant because it is not retrospective.
2. In the letter of appointment by the Commission, there is a clear provision (clause 5) that the terms and conditions of applicant will in no way be altered to his disadvantage as a result of any future decision of the Corporation. Finally the decision to transfer applicant is tantamount to a new appointment which can only be effected by the Commission and not by the Corporation".
On November 13, 1971, the opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent, alleging that the said decision was correct, and that it was falling within their discretionary powers. Furthermore, it was stated that the decision of the Board amounts to alternation of duties and was not made either in excess or in abuse of power; and that it was not a transfer or a demotion. In support of the opposition, it was alleged that both the post of the Head of Television and of the Head of Radio Programmes are on the same level regarding salary and hierarchy, but the latter takes precedence from his colleague because of the wider extent of radio programmes.
It is not in dispute that the Regulations of C.B.C. were approved on April 5, 1962 by the Council of Ministers, in accordance with s. 12 of Cap.300A which came into operation on January 1, 1962 prior to the appointment of the applicant to the post in question.
Before dealing with the submissions of counsel, I find it convenient to refer to the legislation and the regulations which are relevant in the case in hand. The respondent, no doubt, in accordance with s. 10 of Cap.300A, has power to "appoint such servants as it may deem necessary for the discharge of its functions under this Law upon such terms and conditions of service as it may determine".
In accordance with the Regulations which no doubt were known to the Public Service Commission, Regulation 2 specifies, in paragraph 2 "servants" to mean all employees of the Corporation, male or female, but it does include casual employees; and in paragraph 3:-
"These regulations shall apply to all servants except in so far as a servant may be excluded by special permission of his appointment from their operation or from any part thereof".
Furthermore, paragraph 5 deals with the posts and it appears that the Corporation "shall establish such posts in the service... as it may deem necessary, and shall specify which posts will be permanent and which temporary;" and in paragraph 6 "The qualifications required for, and the duties attached to every post shall be the qualifications and duties specified in a scheme of service made by the Corporation under s. 10 of the law." In paragraph 7:-"The duties of a servant shall include the usual duties appertaining to the post he holds and any other duties which may be assigned to him".
Now, reverting to Law 61/70, (enacted on grounds of necessity) the word "prosopikon" (personnel) in s. 2 is defined as including the General Manager, unless in accordance with the relevant law, such appointment is within the competence of the Council of Ministers, the Secretary, and the rest of the personnel and servants of the Corporation. Now, section 3 (1) of the law reads as follows:-
"(1) Τηρουμένων των διατάξεων του οικείου νόμου υπάγεται εις την αρμοδιότητα εκάστου Οργανισμού ο διορισμός, η επικύρωσις διορισμού, η ένταξις εις το μόνιμον προσωπικόν, η προαγωγή, η μετάθεσις, η απόσπασις και η αφυπηρέτησις του προσωπικού του Οργανισμού ως και η επ' αυτού άσκησις πειθαρχικού ελέγχου, περιλαμβανομένων της απολύσεως ή της απαλλαγής από των καθηκόντων μελών του προσωπικού.
(2) Τηρουμένων των διατάξεων του εδαφίου (3), οιαδήποτε των εν τω εδαφίω (1) αναφερομένων αρμοδιοτήτων ασκείται υφ' εκάστου Οργανισμού συμφώνως προς τας διατάξεις του οικείου νόμου η οιωνδήποτε δυνάμει αυτού εκδοθέντων ή εκδοθησομένων κανονισμών ή κανόνων, τας ρυθμιζούσας το θέμα εν σχέσει προς το οποίον ασκείται η αρμοδιότης.
(3) Οσάκις ο οικείος νόμος δεν περιλαμβάνη διάταξιν ρυθμίζουσαν η χορηγούσαν εις τον Οργανισμόν εξουσίαν προς έκδοσιν κανονισμών ή κανόνων ρυθμιζόντων οιονδήποτε των θεμάτων εν σχέσει προς τα οποία δύναται να ασκηθή υπό του Οργανισμού αρμοδιότης δυνάμει του εδαφίου (1), ο οικείος νόμος θα ερμηνεύηται και εφαρμόζηται ως εάν περιελαμβάνετο εν αυτώ διάταξις χορηγούσα εις τον Οργανισμόν εξουσίαν προς έκδοσιν κανονισμών ή κανόνων ρυθμιζόντων το θέμα τούτο."
And in English it reads:-
"3 (1) Subject to the provisions of the specific law the appointment, confirmation of appointment, emplacement in the permanent establishment, promotion, transfer, secondment and retirement of the personnel of the Corporation as well as the exercise by it of disciplinary control, including the dismissal or removal from office of members of the staff, shall be within the competence of each corporation.
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), any one of the competences mentioned in subsection (1) is exercised by each Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the specific law or any regulations or rules made or to be made thereunder, governing the matter in relation to which the competence is exercised.
(3) Whenever the specific law does not include a provision governing or conferring power on the Corporation for the making of regulations or rules governing any of the matters in relation to which the Corporation may exercise competence under subsection (1) the specific law will be interpreted and applied as if there has been included therein provision conferring power on the corporation to make regulations or rules governing this matter".
I think I should have added, before dealing with the contentions of counsel, that the Corporation has the power under s. 10 of the C.B.C. Law Cap. 300A, and the regulations made there under to impose such terms and conditions in a scheme of service as it may determine, and in 1969 it decided, under the heading "Schemes of Service-General Notes", in these terms:-
"1. The following general conditions and requirements are applicable to all posts within the Corporation and should be considered to form an integral part of the duties and responsibilities contained in the Schemes of Service for all posts.
2. All officers are responsible to the Head of their Division and work under his direction, due regard being paid to hierarchy in each of the sub-sections of each Division.
3. All officers will also perform any other appropriate duties that may be assigned to them".
And in
"5. All offificers may be called upon to perform the duties of a relative post of comparative grade in another Division of the Corporation".
Counsel on behalf of the applicant mainly argued-having abandoned the additional point that the transfer tantamount to a new appointment-that the decision of the respondent to assign to the applicant the duties of the Head of Radio Progranime was taken in abuse and/or in excess of their powers because (a) it contravenes the provisions of the C.B.C. Law Cap. 300A and the regulations made thereunder; (b) that the emplacement or transfer to the post in question instead of his own substantive post based on the schemes of service-general notes, was legally wrong, because they do not have the force of a regulation; and (c) that the word "officers" appearing in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the "general notes" cannot be construed to include the head of a department or a division, including the applicant or any other head of a department or division.
On the contrary, counsel on behalf of the respondent argued:
(a) that the respondents have got an unfettered right to transfer or emplace the applicant in any other division of equal status and grade, in accordance with the provisions of C.B.C. Law Cap. 300A and the Regulations made thereunder, so long as such decision is not to his disadvantage financially;
(b) that because the respondent under the Regulations have the power to make schemes of service governing the various posts, they had exercised such rights and issued the 'schemes of service-general notes' which become and are deemed to be part of the particular schemes of service;
(c) that the word 'servants' appearing in the interpretation of paragraph 2 of the Regulations, and the word 'officers' in the document in paragraphs 2 &5, should be given the meaning given in the Regulations that it includes all the employees of the Corporation, including the heads of divisions; and
(d) that the powers granted to the respondent should be read subject to the provisions of ss. 1, 2 and 3 of Law 61/70, enacted to enable the public Corporations to function due to reasons of necessity".
Having listened to the most able and forceful argument of both counsel, I find it convenient to deal first with point (c), and I confess that having considered the words "all officers" appearing in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, I was at first inclined to adopt the view taken by counsel on behalf of the applicant, but on second thoughts, it appears that if one reads also paragraph 1, then it becomes clear that because those conditions and requirements form and become an integral part of the duties and responsibilities contained in the schemes of service for all posts, inevitably, and in spite of the reference that all officers are responsible to the head of their division, in my view it was not meant to exclude the heads of the divisions to be called upon to perform those duties, because had it been so, the respondent would have said so in clear and unambiguous language in the said paragraphs that those conditions and requirements would not be applicable to the heads of the divisions.
Furthermore, I would add that although those conditions and requirements laid down in the "general notes" became applicable to all posts and inevitably the holders of such posts could be called upon to perform the duties of the relative post of comparative grade in another division, nevertheless, no one until today brought it to my notice that in the past an objection was taken by any officer against it. Indeed, this is a scheme which introduces in effect for the first time, perhaps, the idea of the interchanging of duties of the officers of the Corporation, a scheme with which both counsel have expressed their support that it would be in the interest of the Corporation as a whole.
With this in mind, and assuming that if my construction is wrong that the applicant is within the operation of the "general notes" then again having regard to the definition of the word "prosopikon" (personnel) in s. 2 of Law 61/70, which is so wide in its effect as to include even the General Manager of the Corporation, again for this reason also the argument of counsel cannot stand and, therefore, is dismissed.
As to point (b), although I find myself in agreement with counsel that the "general notes" cannot have the force of a regulation as such, nevertheless, I would disagree with him that it is a mere circular, because once the Corporation has powers under both the C.B.C. Law and the Regulations made thereunder, to prescribe schemes of service, the said "general notes" are considered to be as effective as any other scheme of service, because they add to or qualify the schemes of service of the Corporation. If authority is needed, I think the case of Sofoclis Constantinou and Another v. The Republic of Cyprus through the P.S.C. (1966) 3 C.L.R. 174 provides the answer. The learned Judge in that case, dealing with the question as to whether the Authority can qualify its own schemes of service, had this to say at p. 177:-
"I am of the opinion that the aforesaid arrangement (exhibit 2) does form part of the schemes of service of the Authority in the sense that it qualifies all schemes of service accordingly. Since it is the Authority which makes the relevant schemes of service, I see nothing wrong in the Authority qualifying its own schemes of service for the protection of the interests of members of its staff which are already in its service, when a particular scheme of service first comes to be made, and I have no doubt that the arrangement in question is applicable to all schemes of service of the Authority, whether made before or after its date. In this respect it might be useful to note that it is headed 'Clarification of the procedure to be adopted with regard to the applications (sic) of the qualifications required as per the Schemes of Service for the promotion of the existing staff'.
Of course, it would have been more proper, as regards strict form, if such arrangement were to have been made a proviso to each particular scheme of service itself, but such a consideration alone cannot lead me to holding that as the said arrangement stands it is inapplicable to the schemes of service of the Authority".
Finally, as to point (a), I think that the decision of the respondent to assign the duties of a similar post to the applicant, and/or emplace him in that post, is not contrary to the provisions of the C.B.C. Law or Law 61/70, and the Regulations made thereunder, for the reasons I have given earlier, particularly so because it was not to the financial detriment of the applicant, nor was it made in excess or abuse of powers vested in such organ.
However, I feel I ought not to conclude this judgment without saying how much I have owed to both counsel in the preparation of it. But at the same time, by way of observation, if the real purpose of the scheme regarding the interchanging of duties of the two heads of the two divisions was to enable them to learn or master the rapid development in media technology and for no other purpose, one would have expected that the change ought to have been made for a shorter period, rather than the period of four years, which accords with the present day needs of the mass media and with the spirit of the decision of the Corporation.
For the reasons I have endeavoured to explain, both factually and legally, I have reached the conclusion that the decision of the respondent exercising administrative authority was not contrary to any of the provisions of the law or in excess or in abuse of powers vested in such organ, and I would, therefore, affirm the said decision and dismiss the recourse, but in view of the novel points raised, I do not propose making an order for costs against the applicant.
Order accordingly.
No order as to costs.