|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1984) 3 CLR 1522
1984 February 18
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
STEPHANOS MICHAELIDES AND OTHERS,
Applicants,
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND OTHERS,
Respondents.
(Cases Nos. 333/69, 32/70, 33/70).
Administrative Law—Misconception of fact—Probability that a misconception has led to the taking of the sub judice decision— Annulled on this ground.
The applicants in these recourses challenged the decision of the respondents not to provide to them new dwellings at the locality "Ambelitis" where the villages of Statos and Ayios Photios were relocated after landslides had occurred at such villages in 1969.
Held, that the applications of the applicants for new dwellings were examined in such a manner that it is, to say the least, probable that they all were rejected due to material factual misconception; that if an applicant succeeds in establishing that there exists a probability that a misconception has led to the taking of the administrative decision complained of by him it has to be annulled on this ground; and that, therefore, the sub judice administrative decisions have to be annulled and the applications of the applicants for new dwellings have to be re-examined.
Sub judice decisions annulled.
Cases referred to:
Papanisiforou v. Educational Service Commission (1982) 3 C.L.R. 1182 at pp. 1184-1186;
Fournia Ltd. v. Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 262 at p. 279.
Recourses.
Recourses against the decision of the respondents not to provide applicants with new dwellings at the locality "Ambelitis" where the villages of Statos and Ayios Photios were relocated.
St. Erotocritou (Mrs.), for the applicants.
S. Nicolaides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourses the applicants are challenging, in effect, the decision of the respondents not to provide to them new dwellings—and in some instances even a second new dwelling to each one of them—at the locality "Ambilitis" where the villages of Statos and Ayios Photios were relocated after landslides had occurred at such villages in 1969.
The terms on which the relocation of the said villages was to be effected appear in a relevant decision of the Council of Ministers, dated 15th May 1969 (No. 8737); and material for the present proceedings are its provisions that "those having a dwelling and permanent residence in the village are entitled to the grant of a new dwelling" and that "in cases in which a family possessed another dwelling destined for the advancement of a single daughter of it, it will be entitled to another new dwelling".
In cases 333/69 and 33/70 the applicants allege that they are entitled to new dwellings as they were the owners of dwellings at the material time, namely in 1969, and they were, also, permanent residents of the villages in question.
The applicants in case 32/70 allege that each one of them had, at the material time, a second dwelling which was destined to be given as dowry to a single daughter and, therefore, that they are entitled to a second new dwelling.
The applications of the applicants for new dwellings were refused on the ground that they did not come within the ambit of the above referred to provisions of the relevant decision of the Council of Ministers.
All these cases were heard together in view of their nature. Their hearing was commenced before another Judge of this Court, who before its completion retired, and then, with the consent of both sides, they were heard by me.
During these proceedings applicats Nos. 4 and 5 in case 333/69 and applicant No. 12 in ease 32/70 withdrew their recourses which, in so far as they relate to them, were dismissed accordingly.
In the course of the hearing there was adduced, at length, evidence by both sides, by way of affidavits and orally, but I will not refer in detail to it. It suffices to state that on the basis of such evidence I have formed the view that the applications of the applicants for new dwellings were examined in such a manner that it is, to say the least, probable that they all were rejected due to material factual misconceptions.
It is well settled that if an applicant succeeds in establishing that there exists a probability that a misconception has led to the taking of the administrative decision complained of by him it has to be annulled on this ground (see, inter alia, in this respect, Papaonisiforou v. The Educational Service Commission, (1982) 3 C.L.R. 1182, 1184-1186, and Fournia Ltd. v. The Republic, (1983) 3 C.L.R. 262, 279).
In the light of the foregoing the sub judice administrative decisions have to be annulled and the applications of the applicants for new dwellings have to be re-examined.
I have decided not to make any order as to the costs of these cases.
Sub judice decisions annulled.
No order as to costs.