1967 April 11 [VASSILIADES, P., JOSEPHIDES, STAVRINIDES, LOIZOU, HADJIANASTASSIOU, J J.] REPUBLIC ( M I N I S T E R OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH COMMERCE
- THE MINISTER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
- THE SENIOR MINES OFFICER, AND INDUSTRY AND A N O T H E R ) Appellants, V. YlANGOS v. DROUSHIOTIS YIANGOS DROUSHIOTIS, Respondent. (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No.22). Mines and Quarries—Appeal against decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court annulling, on a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution, the Respondent's refusal to grant Applicant (Respondent) permits under theMines andQuarries {Regulation) Law, Cap. 270—On the ground that the Public Authority concerned, in deciding to refuse such permits, did not properly exercise its discretion in the matter—Appeal taken by the aforesaid public Authority—Appeal dismissed, the Supreme Court finding no substance therein—See, also, herebelow. Administrative Law—Discretionary powers vested in the executive organs—Principles upon which this Court will interfere with the exercise of such discretion—Improper exercise thereofExcess or abuse of powers—Infringement of generally accepted principles of Administrative Law—Article 146.1of the Constitution—See also, hereabove. Discretionary powers of executive organs—The Court will never substitute therefor its own discretion in the matter—See above. This appeal istaken bythepublic authority concerned, against the judgment of the trial Judge—a member of the Supreme Court, acting ona recourse under Article 146ofthe Constitution, see his judgment in
(1966)3C.L.R. 722—annulling the decision of the authority, by which Respondent's application for certain prospecting permits under Cap. 270 (supra) were refused. The matter was referred back to the said administrative authority "to be reconsidered afresh" in the light of the findings and observations in the learned Judge's Judgment. 232 The Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal: Held,
(1)(a). The jurisdiction under Article 146 of the Constitution has been exercised for several years now,in a big number of cases, of a great variety. Time and time again, this Court has stated the principles of administrative law which guide the Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction; and the extent to which the Court can go in dealing with the discretion which the law places in executive organs. 1967 April II REPUBLIC ( M I N I S T E R OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND A N O T H E R ) v. YIANGOS DROUSHIOTIS (b) It has always preserved and sustained such discretion when properly exercised; and, where the Court found that thediscretion wasexercised inthecontrary way,it hasinvariably referred matters back to the executive for the exercise of their discretion in such matters, without substituting its own discretion.
(2)We are unanimously of the opinion that this Court has no cause for interfering in any way with the decision of the trial Judge and the reasons given therefor. We can find no substance in this appeal. Appealdismissed withcosts. Appeal. Appeal against a decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Triantafyllides J.) given on the 25.8.66 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 61/65) annulling, on a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution, the Appellants' refusal to grant Respondent (Applicant) permits under the Mines and Quarries_(Regulation) Law, Cap. 270. K. Talarides, Counsel of the Republic, for the Appellants. A. Myrianthis for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: VASSILIADES, P.: After hearing learned counsel for the Appellants in this revisional appeal, we are of opinion that we need not call on counsel for the Respondent. The appeal was taken by the public authority concerned, against the Judgment* of the trial Judge inthepresent recourse, *Note: Judgment reported in
(1966)3 C.L.R. 722. 233 1967 April 11 REPUBLIC (MINISTER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY annulling the administrative decision of the authority, by which Respondent's application for certain prospecting permits under the Mines and Quarries (Regulation) Law (Cap. 270) were refused. The matter was referred back to the administrative authority "to be reconsidered afresh" in the light of the findings and observations in the Court's Judgment. AND ANOTHER) v. YIANGOS DROUSHIOTIS Theappealwasfounded onfour groundswhichmay,however, besummarized inthecontention that thetrialJudge erroneously decided that the administrative authority did not act properly 'in the exercise of their discretionary power in the matter, thus taking a decision in excess or abuse of their powers. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Administrative Court in a recourse of this nature, should only deal with the legality of theadministrative decision; and should not concern itself with the exercise of the discretion. which the Law gives to the administrative authority in the performance of Government functions. In dealing with a recourse, this Court exercises thejurisdiction prescribed in Article 146 of the Constitution. It has to adjudicate on complaints that "a decision, an act or ommission of any organ, authority or person, exercising any executive authority iscontrary toanyoftheprovisions of the Constitution orofanylaw,orismadeinexcessorinabuseofpowersvestedin such organ or authority or person". This jurisdiction has been exercised for several years now, in a big number of cases, of a great variety. Time and time again, this Court has stated the principles of administrative law which guide the Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction in question; andtheextentto whichtheCourt cangoindealing with the discretion which the law places in executive organs. It has always preserved and sustained such discretion when properly exercised; and, where the Court found that the discretion was exercised in the contrary way, it has invariably referred matters back to the executive for the exercise of their discretion in such matters, without substituting its own discretion. In this particular case, the learned trial Judge, after stating in his careful and well considered Judgment, the reasons for which he reached the conclusion that the recourse should succeed, referred the case back to the administrative authority 234 to deal with it afresh, and in doing so to exercise the powers and discretion which the Law gives to such authority in this matter. 1967 April 11 REPUBLIC (MINISTER OF The reasons for which the trial Judge reached that conclusion, appear fully in his Judgment; and none of them has been challenged in the appeal. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND A N O T H E R ) v. YIANGOS We are unanimously of the opinion that, considering the nature of the proceedings, this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, has no cause for interfering in any way with the decision of the trial Judge. We can find no substance in this appeal. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. 235 DROUSHIOTIS