|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1989) 3A CLR 586
1989 May 20
[MALACHTOS, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
GEORGHIOS CHRYSANTHOU,
Applicant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS THROUGH THE MINISTER OF
COMMUNICATION AND WORKS AND ANOTHER (NO.1),
Respondent.
(Case No.117/77)
Abatement of recourse for annulment - If annulment may support a right to damages under Art. 146.6 of the Constitution, the recourse is not abated.
The applicant in the recourse was not granted a road service license in respect of bus registration number X752. The bus was sold by applicant at some time following the reservation of the judgment in the recourse. As. a result the interested party filed an application for dismissing the recourse on the ground that the applicant in the recourse no longer had a legitimate interest. Applying the principle appearing in the hereinabove Headnote, the Court dismissed the latter application.
Application dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Cases referred to:
Hapeshis v. Republic (1979) 3 C.L.R. 550,
Christodoulides v. Republic (l978 3 C.L.R. 193.
Recourse.
Application by the interested party for the re-opening of the recourse to hear argument to the effect that the recourse remained without an object, the applicant having alienated his bus in 1981.
C. Velaris, for the Applicant - Interested party.
A. Pantelides, for the Respondent - Applicant.
Cl. Theodoulou (Mrs), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
MALACHTOS, J. read the following Judgment. The present recourse was filed by the applicant against the decision of the respondent Minister dated 26.2.77 to revoke the decision of 29.6.76 by which the applicant was granted a road service licence in respect of his bus Reg. No. X752 with the right to carry passengers from the villages of Linou, Flasou, Katydata, Skoyriotissa, Kalon Chorion, Ayios Nicolaos and Petra.
The applicant in the present application, the Linou - Flasou Transport Co., filed on 21.7.76 a hierarchical recourse before the Minister who, as a result, revoked his aforesaid decision of 29.6.76.
The case was heard by this Court and judgment was reserved on 26. 10.79.
On 2.10.81 an application was filed by the aforesaid interested party for the recourse to be re-opened to hear argument to the effect that the recourse remained without an object, the present respondent-applicant, having alienated his bus in question in June 1981. It was submitted that the applicant had thus lost his legitimate interest which should exist up to the time of judgment.
The respondent applicant, on the other hand, argued that it is necessary for an applicant according to the general principles of Administrative Law, to possess such legitimate interest both at the time of filing and hearing of a recourse, but it is not necessary for such interest to exist up to the time of delivery of the judgment.
As far as the question of legitimate interest is concerned, it is not disputed that the respondent applicant disposed of his bus in June 1981 because, as he states in his affidavit filed in opposition, he was not granted until then a road service licence by the Licensing Authority which was necessary for him in order to be able to operate such bus.
It is also not disputed that the present respondent applicant possessed an existing legitimate interest both at the time of filing the recourse and at the time that judgment was reserved. The refusal of the respondent Minister to grant the applicant the licence he applied for amounts to an administrative act which has produced permanent results. I do not think, therefore, that due to the sale of the bus in question by the respondent- applicant, the recourse was abated but I consider that the validity of the sub judice decision still has to be pronounced upon because if it were to be found to be invalid, such finding may entitle the applicant in the recourse to damages, if any, under Article 146.6 of the Constitution. (See Hapeshis v. The Republic (1979) 3 C.L.R. 550, at p. 557-562; Christodoulides v. The Republic (1978) 3 C.L.R. 193, 196-197).
For the reasons stated above, this application is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Application dismissed. No order
as to costs.