clr/1983/1983_3_745.pdf

(1983)receiving this letter they wrote back on !0th November, 1976 expressingtheir disagreement with the contents of the said letter of the 26th October. By means of this recourse applicants complained against the alleged failure of the respondent toreply totheirwritten requests 5 and complaints dated 20thJuly, 1976 and 10thNovember, 1976, in compliance with Article 29* of the Constitution. Held, that theletters to the applicants dated7thJanuary, 1976 and 26thOctober, 1976 constitute duly reasoned replies to them in thesense of, and in compliancewith, Article 29 of theConsti­ tution; that the fact that the applicants kept on thereafter reiterating practically the same requests and complaints, as they have done by means of their letter of 10th November 1976, did not create, under Article 29 an obligation on the part of the respondent Minister to keep replying to such requests andcom­ plaints, because a particular request or complaint has to be attended toand decided and a reasoned reply given in respect of it,as envisagedby thesaid Article 29,only whenitisfirst addres­ sed to the competent public authority and not on every subse­ quent occasion when it is repeated without anything new being put forward which would merit further consideration; and that any other construction and application of Article 29 might lead to absurd results and would lead to an abuse of the right safeguarded by Article 29; accordingly the recourse must be dismissed. 10 !5 20 25 Recourse dismissed. Recourse. Recourse against the omission of the respondents to reply to applicants' written requests and complaints dated 20th July, 1976 and 10th November,

1. D. Papachrysostomou, for the applicants. A. S. Angelides, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult* TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse theapplicants complain against an alleged 35 * Article 29 is quoted at p. 748 post. 746 30 3 C.L.R. Pang. Enosis Eplst.Chimikonv.M.Education Triaotafyllldes P. omission oftherespondent toreplyto theirwritten requestsand complaints dated 20th July, 1976 and 10th November,
2. The salient facts of this caseappear, from thematerial before me, to be as follows: 5 On 22nd October, 1975 the applicants, who are the Union of Chemists, wrote to the Ministry of Education complaining, in effect, about the fact that during the preceding years there had not been appointed chemists in thepublic educational serviceas secondary education schoolmasters of chemistry; and as they 10 received no reply they wrote a further letter regarding the same matter on 25th November,
3. On 7th January, 1976 the Director-General of the Ministry of Education replied to the two aforesaid letters of the applicants explaining indetail why schoolmasters ofphysicsand of natural 15 science were being appointed in order to teach, among other subjects,chemistry, too,and statingfurther that inanyeventthe matter raised bytheapplicantswouldbeexamined inrelation to the forthcoming school-year. Then, the applicants wrote back on 20th July, 1976 refuting 20 the explanations given to them as aforesaid by the letter of 7th January,
4. As they received no reply the applicants wrote on 1stSeptember, 1976askingtobeinformed,amongother things,whether the respondent Ministry had requested the Educational Service 25 Commission to appoint chemists as schoolmasters and how many of them. On 26th October, 1976 they received a reply that the matter in question wasbeingexamined inconjunction withtherevision of the schemes of service for posts of schoolmasters. 30 The applicants wrote back on 10th November, 1976expressing their disagreement with the contents of the aforesaid letter of 26th October, 1976 and requesting, consequently, that the • schemesofservicealreadyinforce should beapplied inrelation to the appointment of schoolmasters of chemistry. 35 Then, on November 26, 1976, there took placeameetingof the respondent Minister and ofrepresentativesof the applicants during which the whole matter was discussed. 747 Triantnfyflldcs P. Pons-EnoslsEpbt.Chlmlkoov.M.Education

(1983)The only ground which has been argued in support of the present recourse by counsel for the applicants is that the respondent has failed to reply to the aforementioned letters of the applicants of 20th July, 1976and 10th November, 1976in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution, which reads as follows: 5 "

1. Every person has the right individually or jointly with others to address written requests or complaints to any competent public authority and to have them attended to and decided expeditiously; an immediate notice of any 10 such decision taken duly reasoned shall be given to the person making the request or complaint and in any event within a period not exceeding thirty days.
2. Where any interested person is aggrieved by any such decisionorwherenosuchdecision isnotified tosuchperson 15 within the period specified in paragraph 1of this Article, suchpersonmayhaverecourseto a competentcourt inthe matter of such request or complaint". Having in mind the whole correspondence which has been exchanged between theparties, as aforesaid, I have cometo the 20 conclusion that the letters to the applicants dated 7thJanuary, 1976and 26th October, 1976constitute duly reasoned replies to them in the sense of, and incompliance with, Article 29of the Constitution. It is correct that no reply was given to the letter of the applicants dated 10th November 1976; but, in the cir- 25 cumstancesof thepresent case,it cannot besaid that the failure to reply to such letter amounts to a contravention ofArticle29 of the Constitution since the same complaints and requests of the applicants had been duly answered already earlier and the relevant policy of, and theactionbeingtakenby,theMinistryof 30 Education hadbeencommunicated andexplainedtothembythe answers given to them as above. In my opinion the fact that the applicants kept on thereafter reiterating practically the samerequestsand complaints, asthey have done by means of their letter of 10th November 1976,did 35 not create,under Article 29,above,an obligation on thepart of the respondent Minister to keep replying to such requests and complaints; because, in my view, a particular request or complaint has to be attended to and decided and a reasoned 748 3 C.L.R. Pang. EnoslsEplst.Chlmikonv.M.Education Triantafyllides P. reply given in respect of it, as envisaged by the said Article 29, onlywhenit isfirst addressed to thecompetentpublic authority and not on every subsequent occasion when it isrepeated without anything newbeing put forward which would merit further 5 consideration; it seems to me that any other construction and application ofArticle29might leadto absurd resultsandwould lead to an abuse of the right safeguarded by Article
3. In the light of all theforegoing Ihave reached the conclusion that it has not been established that the respondent has con10 travened Article 29, above, as alleged by the applicants. Before concluding this judgment I should stress that in the present recourse I am not concerned with whether or not the relevant requests andcomplaintsof theapphcantswerejustified, and, so, I should not express any view in this connection. 15 For thereasons setout inthisjudgment thisrecoursefails and it is dismissed accordingly; but, in view of the nature of the case, I shall make no order as to costs against the applicants. Recourse dismissed. No order as tocosts. 749