the Religious Groups(Representation) Laws, 1970to 1981—Are Administrative actscoming within theexclusive 5 ambit of Article 146.1 of the Constitution—No jurisdiction to grant leaveto applyfor order of mandamus in relationtosaid Orderand Notice in view of the mutual exclusivityof the jurisdictionsunderthe said Articles 146.1 and 155.4. Theapplicant wasacandidatefor electionastherepresentative, 10 in the House of Representatives, of the leligious group of the Armenians. The election was fixed tobeheldonSeptember27, 1981 but on September 23, 1981 the House of Representatives in special session by a unanimous decision proposed to theexecutive power to postpone to a future date the election inview of 15 certain difficulties whicharose inrespect of therelevantelectoral roll. As a result of this decision theMinister of Interior published onSeptember 25,1981,an Order ("theOrder") intheOmcial Gazette revoking the proclamation of the election and at the same time the Chief Returning Officer pubUshed a Notice ("the 20 Notice")bymeans of which theelectionwaspostponedto a date to be fixed later. 470 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 In re Andranik Asdjian Upon anapplicationfor leavetoapplyfor anorderofmandamus,
.4 of the Constitution, directingthe Minister of Interior and the Chief Returning Officerto Performtheir obligations
the ReligiousGroups(Representations) Laws, 1970 to 1981 and to carryout the said electiononSeptember 27, 1981 as suchelection has been fixed to be held: Held, that the Order and Notice are administrative acts which appear to come within the exclusive ambit of Article 146.1 of the Constitution; that the remedy of mandamus,
.4 of the Constitution, is not available in a situation of this nature in view of the mutual exclusivity of the jurisdictions
.1 and Article 155.4 of the Constitution; that this Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction, irrespective of what may be the merits of the complaint of the applicant, to grant him leave to apply for an order of mandamus
the said Article 155.4; accordingly the application must be dismissed (see, inter alia, Vassiliouv. Police Disciplinary Committees
.4 of the Constitution, directing the Minister of Interior and the Chief Returning Officer to carry out the election of the representative, in the House of Representatives, of the Religions Group of the Armenians. L. Papaphilippou with Cr. Papaloizouand Chr. Christofides, for the applicant. A. Evangelou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Minister of Interior and the Chief Returning officer. Cur. adv. vult. 35 TRIANTAFYLUDES P. read the following decision: The applicant, who is a candidate for election as the representative, in 471 Triantafyllides P. Ιαre Andranik Asdjian
Officer to perform their obli- 5 gations
the Religious Groups (Representation) Laws, 1970 to 1981,and tocarry out theelectionofthe representative, in the House of Representatives, of the Religious Groupof the Armenians on September 27, 1981, as such election has been fixed to be held. 10 From thefacts which have been placed before meitappears, indeed, that thesaid election was initially fixed tobeheldto morrow and that the applicant put forward his candidature on September 17, 1981. On September 23, 1981, theHouse of Representatives met 15 in special session and by a unanimus Decision it proposed to the Executive Power topostponetoafuture datetheelection fixed for September 27, 1981, inviewofcertaindifficulties which arose in respect of the relevant electoral roll. This Decision of the Houseof Representatives has not,asfar asI know, been 20 published in theofficial Gazette of the Republic As a result of the said Decision the Minister of Interior published on September 25, 1981, an Order (No. 1075in the Third Supplement, Part II, to the Official Gazette of the Republic) revoking the proclamation of the election of the 25 representative, in the House of Representatives, of the Reli gious Group of theArmenians, and at the same time theic was, also, published in theOfficial Gazette (No. 1076in the Third Supplement, Part II)a Notice by the Chief Returning Officer stating lhat theelection in question, which was to be 30 held on September 27, 1981,isbeing postponed toadate which will be fixed later. In thesaid Notice there is reference to a warrant of the Minister of Interior, dated September 24, 1981, which has not been produced before me and which, asfarasIknow, has not 35 been published in the official Gazette. Thereisno reference in theaforementioned Order andNotice to anyspecific legislative provisions onthestrength of which they have been published. 472 1 CX.R. In re Andranik Asdjian Triantafyllides P. 5 There is no doubt that the situation which has arisen as a result of the above developments is a novel situation the future implications of which I cannot duly evaluate at this stage; and it is quite possible that the applicant is right in contending that there arise in relation thereto serious issues of law. In myopiniontheapplicantwas, therefoie,fully justified in bringing the matter before this Court for the protection of what he considers to be his own legitimate interests as a candidate, as well as those of the Religious Group to which he belongs. 10 ι I 1 have now to consider whether I can grant to the applicant the applied for leave by him to file an application for an order of mandamus,
.4 of the Constitution: The Order and Notice which were published, as aforesaid, in the official Gazetteon September 25, 1981, are in my opinion 15 administrative acts which appear to come within the exclusive ambit of Article 146.1 of the Constitution. 1 20 25 30 35 According to case-law, such as Ramadan v. The Electricity Authority of Cyprus, 1 R.S.C.C. 49, Vassiliou v. PoliceDisci plinary Committees,
.4 of the Constilution, is not available in a situation of this nature in view of the mutual exclusivity of the jurisdictions
I have, therefore, nojurisdiction, irrespective of what may be the merits of the complaint of the applicant, to grant him leave to apply for an order of mandamus
the said Article 155.4. It is to be observed, moreover, that by means of the present application, which is not a proceeding
of the Constitution, there cannot be annulled the acts in question of the Minister of Interior and of the Chief Returning Officer (Nos. 1075 and 1076); and so even if it were to be assumed that leave to apply for an order of mandamus could be granted this would not help at all the applicant because it would still not be possible to hold tomorrow the election concerned in view of the operation of the said two acts. I am not holding finally that in this exceptional situation the applicant is without any remedy at all. I, simply, cannot grant him today the remedy which is being sought by him by means 473 TriantafylHdes P. In re Andranik Asdjian
AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.