clr/1976/1976_3_285.pdf

(1973)—As there didnot exist at such time a public service vehicle owned by them—And the road service licence which had been issued to them earlier in respect thereof had lapsed—Kaminaros v. Republic

(1971)3 C.L.R. 445andp. 448followed—Proviso tos. 8

(1)of the Motor Transport (Regulation) Law, 1964(Law 16 of 1964) cannot be invoked. 20 The applicants were the owners of a public service vehicle under Registration No. AU6which was until April 1967 licensed to circulate as a taxi or trans-urban taxi; in 1969it was converted into a private oneandin July of that year ceased belonging to them. Bymeans of an application dated 27th September, 1973,the applicants applied for a road service licence in replacement of the one which belonged to the said vehicle AU 6on theground that this vehicle hasbeen sold for financial reasons as a private one and its 'T' has been retained for use on the new vehicle. 25 The respondent authority turned down the application at its meeting held in October 1973 having come to the conclusion that "a taxi licence belongs both tothevehicle andtotheperson and in the case in hand the vehicle has been alienated bythe applicants a long timeago". 15 In challenging thevalidity of this refusal applicants submitted that their case wasoneof replacement ofa vehicle andthat the 285 1976 Sept. 25 K.E.M. (TAXI) LTD. v. REPUBLIC (PERMITS AUTHORITY) case stands or falls in the interpretation of section 8

(1)* of the Motor Transport (Regulation) Law, 1964 (Law 16 of 1964) and in particular the proviso thereof. Held, that the alienation of motor car AU6 in 1969 brought to an end the existence ofa right to have it replaced in October, 1973when the application leadingto the subjudicedecision was filed;that there did not exist a public service vehicle at the time owned by the applicants and that the road service licence which had been issued earlier to the applicants in respect of the said motor car had lapsed (see Kaminaros and Anotherv. TheRepublic

(1971)3 C.L.R. 445 at p. 448); that the prerequisite of the existence of a road service licence for the said motor car AU6 at,the time, did not exist and consequently the proviso to section 8

(1)of the Law could not be invoked; and that, accordingly the subjudicedecision was properly taken and this application will have to be dismissed. 10 15 Application dismissed. Cases referred to: Kaminaros & Anotherv. The Republic

(1971)3 C.L.R. 445 at p. 448; Christodoulou v. The Republic

(1972)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent Permits Authority refusing applicants' application for the replacement of a road service licence of a taxi, Reg. No. AU. 6, with a new 25 one. A. Panayiotou, for the applicants. CI.Antoniades, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. The following judgment was delivered by:30 A. Loizou, J.: This recourse is directed against the decision of the respondent, Licensing Authority, of the 19th October, 1973, whereby the application of the applicants for the replacement of a taxi, Reg. No. AU 6, with a new one, was refused. The facts so far as relevant which appear extensively in the 35 fileof the respondent Authority (exhibit 2), the application and the opposition, as well as the documents attached thereto and * Quoted at p. 291 post. 286 20 the affidavit sworn by one of the Directors of the applicants filed at the conclusion of the proceedings dated 5th June, 1975, are the following: · The applicants havebeenengaged for thelast20yearsin the 5 transport business all over Cyprus. On the 8th February, 1965,anapplication wasmadeto theLicensingAuthority under section 17 oftheMotorTransport (Regulation) Law,'1964,Law 16/64, for the issue of a licence regarding motor-vehicle AU 6, afive-seattaxi for the trans-urban traffic areas connecting Li10 massoland Paphostowns,beinga publicservicevehiclelicensed as such on the date of the coming into operation of the Law., Thesaidvehicle,however,waslicensedasataxiinrespectofthe urbantraffic areaofLimassol (exhibit2,red3)and it continued being so licensed from year to year until July,
2. (See 15 exhibit 2,red 14). Unlike the first application wherea licence was asked for the trans-urban traffic area, the subsequent applications submitted from year to year were for a road service for the urban traffic area of Limassol. With their letter dated 1.
3. 1968 (exhibit3), the applicants 20 enclosed a list of their vehicles, which, according to them, on 19.11.1964were circulating as trans-urban taxis and requested that trans-urban road service licences be granted in respect of certain vehicles named in the letter, including the said vehicle AU 6 which was stated to have been serving the Limassol-Pa25 phos route and so declared to be in their original application (exhibit2, red 1). By another application dated 28.1.1968(exhibit 2, red 13), the applicants sought permission for the registration of a new car as "agoreon" (public) taxi, in replacement of vehicle TAU 30 6 "agoreon" (public) taxi which would be converted into a private one. The respondent Authority at its meeting of the 28th February, 1969,approved the saidapplication and theapplicantswere informed accordingly by letter dated
4. 3.1969 (exhibit 2,reds 35 15and 16),in which it was stated that the permit related to the replacement ofan urban taxi andthatit wouldbevalidfor three months, as from that date. The respondent Authority at itsmeetingofthe20th January, 1970 (exhibit2, red 18), considered and approved the appli40 cation of the applicants dated 1.
5. 1968for the grant of trans287 1976 Sept. 25 K.E.M. (TAXI) LTD. v. REPUBLIC (PERMITS AUTHORITY) 1976 Sept. 25 K.E.M. (TAXI) LTD. v. REPUBLIC (PERMITS AUTHORITY) urban licence to the said vehicle AU 6and they were informed of this decision by letter dated 28.1.1970 (exhibit2, red 19) in which it was also stated that "Nicosia" would be its basis; they were also called upon to complete certain forms required bylaw, and werefurther reminded that thepermitwasvalid for 5 three months and on condition that the vehiclewas of the permitted dimensions. Byletter dated the 15th March, 1971 (exhibit 2, red 21),the applicants requested that the approval for the trans-urban licence be renewed, asthe vehiclein question was at the garage 10 for repairs. Upon a decision to that effect, a representative of the applicants attended the meeting of the respondent Authority of the 10th July,
6. The said representative mentioned that the responsible officer of their Company, through his own negligence, did not renew the licences of a number of their ve- 15 hides, including taxi AU 6, that the said non-renewal was not done purposely, and requested that their applications be considered as new ones. The respondent Authority having considered the whole matter, decided that theposition should befurther inquired into 20 bytheOffice oftheTransport Control Officer and thevehiclesbe mechanically checked, and it should also be ascertained up to which date such vehicles were licensed. The respondent Authority considered thematter atitsmeetingofthe6thJune,1972 (exhibit 2, red 31) and in view ofthefact that when the appli- 25 cants submitted their written application on 8.
7. 1965 they stated therein that theywere applying for a licence in respect of the Limassol-Paphos route they decided to approve the application for thegrant ofatrans-urban licenceinrespectofthesaid vehicle which had been completely destroyed due to a traffic 30 accident and as same was licensed during the years 1959, 1970 and in respect of the year 1971 it was licensed from
8. 4.1971 to 30.
9. 1971 they approved same. Byits decision of the 10thJune, 1972, therespondent Authority decided for the reasons stated therein, to which I need not 35 refer, that thedecision ofthe 6thJune, 1972should not becommunicated to the parties concerned until a final decision was taken at one of its future meetings (exhibit 2, red 34). At its meeting of the20th June, 1972 the respondent Authority decided to renew the licence of the said vehicle AU 6, to 40 circulate asa trans-urban taxi, (exhibit 2, red 37), andbyletter 288 dated the 30th June, 1972 (red 39) communicating the said decision, on the same terms as decided on the 28th January, 1970, but that the vehicle would be serving Limassol—Paphos route instead of operating, based at Nicosia, as the original 5 decision communicated to the applicants by the letter-of the 20th January, 1970, was. 1976 Sept. 25 K.E.M. (TAXI) LTD. v. REPUBLIC 0?ERMIT3 On the 3rd July, 1972, therefollowed a second applicationon behalf of the applicants for permission to replace the said ve­ hiclewith a new one. The respondentAuthority at itsmeeting 10 of the 7th July, 1972 after an exchange of views between its members, decided to approve this second application for re­ placement, because, as stated, "The vehicles of the applicants had been destroyed in road accidents and that the sameproce­ dure as the one followed in similar instances should be fol15 lowed". The applicants were informed of this decision by letter dated 8.
10. 1972 wherein it was also stated that after replacement the vehicle AU 6 would remain a private car. (Red 45). The respondent Authority upon receiving information con20 cerningthestatusandownership of thevehicle inquestionwhich was totheeffect thatitwas on2.
11. 1969converted intoa private one and that it ceased to belong to the applicants with effect from 18.
12. 1969, at its meeting of 14.
13. 1972 (reds 48-47) de­ cided to summon the applicants before it for the purpose of 25 giving an explanation with regard to thetwo matters which had not been placed before the Authority at its previous meeting (red 47) namely: (a) Whether vehicle AU 6 was in 1969 replaced by a new vehicle and which is thevehicle that replaced it. 30 (b) And whether thatvehicle belonged to theCompanyor stood registered in the name of any other person. The respondent Authority considered thematter at its meet­ ing of 25.
14. 1972 when they heard Mr. L. Markides on behalf of the applicants who said:-" this vehicle (AU 6) was 35 circulating untilApril, 1967as urban andtrans-urban taxi asno licencewas required for trans-urban taxis. Forfinancialreasons we sold it andwe retainedthe'T'in order to use it ona newve­ hicle. The reasons for applying to replace AU 6 is because, as I have already mentioned,wehave retainedtheΎ thatbelonged 40 to AU 6 which had been converted into a private one". Re289 AUTHORITY) 1976 Sept. 25 K.E.M. (TAXI) LTD. plyingtoa question from theChairman astowhether AU6 was replaced with a new one Mr. Markides said, "No because we have not received the approval from the Licensing Authority". Thereupon the Authority reserved its decision. v. REPUBLIC (PERMITS AUTHORITY) By an application dated
16. 1973 the applicants applied again, and this isthethird application for replacement of AU6 with a new one. The respondent Authority considered this application at its meeting of 19.10.1973 (exhibit2, red 54) and their minutes read as follows: Documents produced: 10 Previous minutes of Permits Authority dated 25.7.1972 (red 52) which mention that Mr. Markides stated that for financialreasons he sold this vehicle as a private one and retained *T*in order to place it on the new vehicle. The Licensing Authority considered the above applica- 15 tion and in viewof thefact that a taxi licence belongs both to thevehicle and to the person and inthecasein hand the vehicle has been alienated by the applicants a long time ago, it turned down the application". The applicants wereinformed ofthe above decision by letter 20 dated
18. 1973againstwhich thepresent recourseisdirected. The above factual situation is not disputed by the parties though the applicants did on the 5.
19. 1975filean affidavit setting out the above facts and putting forward their own version as to the stand they had taken. 25 From the above narration of the facts it is revealed that the vehicle in question has,since April, 1967,stopped circulating as a taxi ortrans-urban taxi and that inApril, 1969wasconverted intoaprivateoneandinJulyofthatyearceasedbelongingtothe applicants. Furthermore, the applicants failed to disclose to 30 the respondent Authority the said fact which was only discoveredwhen theAuthority conducted an inquiry about it in1972, as hereinabove set out. Previous renewals of the licence of vehicleAU 6weremade on the representation of the applicants that same was in existence and was either at the garage for re- 35 pairs (see exh. 2, red 21) or completely destroyed due to a traffic accident (see exh. 2, red 31). 290 Counsel for the applicants has submitted that their casewas one of replacement ofavehicleand that thecasestands or falls on the interpretation of section 8

(1)of the Motor Transport (Regulation) Law, 1964 and in particular the proviso thereof. 5 The said section, so far as relevant, reads as follows:" 8.-(l) The licensing authority may at its discretion grant a road servicelicenceorimposesuchconditionsasthelicensing authority may deem fit in the circumstances: 10 Provided that wherea publicservicevehiclein respect of which a road service licence has been granted is put out of circulation, the owner thereof shall be entitled to receive, subject to the provisions of this or of any other relevant Law, a road service licence in respect of any vehicle with which he proposes to replace such public service vehicle". 15 It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that a lapseof timeispermitted bytheLawbetween thewithdrawal from circulation ofa publicservicevehicleand its replacement by another, and there is notimelimit prescribed by this Law regarding the length of this period that may lapse between the putting out of 20 circulation and the replacement of a public service vehicle. Therefore, the moment a public service vehicle is put out of circulation, arightofreplacement comesintoexistencebyvirtue of this proviso. Further, I was invited to distinguish the cases of Kaminaros and Another v. TheRepublic

(1971)3 C.L.R. 445 25 at p.448and Christodoulouv. TheRepublic

(1972)3C.L.R.290, on the ground that thewithdrawal and the replacement of such a vehicleisthecruxofthedifferentiation ofourcasefrom them. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent Authority has argued that this proviso has four prerequisites which mushexist 30 at thetime ofthefilingoftheapplication for replacement before same is invoked, namely, that there must be a public service vehiclewhichhasaroad servicelicence,ownership of same and a withdrawal from circulation. In myview,thealienation ofmotorcar AU 6in 1969brought 35 to anend theexistenceofa rightto haveit replaced in October, 1973when the application leading to thesubjudice decisionwas filed. There did not exist a public service vehicle at the time owned by the applicants, and on the authority of Kaminaros case(supra)theroad servicelicencewhichhadbeenissued earlier 40 to the applicants in respect of motorcar AU 6 had lapsed. 291 1976 Sept. 25 K.E.M. (TAXI) LTD. v. REPUBLIC (PERMITS AUTHORITY) 1976 Sept. 25 K.E.M. (TAXI) LTD. v. REPUBLIC (PERMITS AUTHORITY) Therefore, the prerequisite of the existence of a road service licencefor motorcar AU 6at the time,did not exist and consequently the proviso could not be invoked. Therefore, for alltheabovereasonsthesubjudicedecisionwas properly taken and this application is dismissed but in the cir- 5 cumstances I make no order as to costs. Application dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 292