clr/1983/1983_3_793.pdf

(6)(«)of the MotorVehicles andRoad Traffic Regulations1973—After examiningtheir condition and findingthem tobeunsafefor use—No violationof therulesofgood administration. Constitutional Law—RighttopropertyunderArticle 23.1 of the Con­ stitution—Cancellation of registration of motor vehicle under regulation $

(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles andRoadTrafficRegu­ lations 1973—Article 23.1 not contravened. 793 Five Bus Trous Ltd. v. Republic

(1983)Administrative acts or decisions—Revocation—Cancellation of re­ gistration of motor vehicle under regulation Z

(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations, \913—Does not constitute a revocation of the registration. Natural justice—Rules of—Cancellation of registration of motor vehicle under regulation 8

(2)(£>)(ιϊ) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations 1973 —A purely administrative matter— No comparable duty on respondent to comf. ly with rules of natural justice. 5 The applicants imported into Cyprus certain omnibuses 10 which were fitted with a left-hand drive; after effecting locally the necessary changes they converted them into right-hand drive and following the prescribed inspection they registered them. After a fatal traffic accident the respondents decided that vehicles such as those of the applicants should be called for re-inspection 15 in order to ascertain their road worthiness. For this purpose a committee consisting of three members was set up which after inspecting applicants' vehicles decided* that they were unsafe for use in the condition they were because, inter alia, the locally effected change of the steering system in order to be acceptable 20 must be made in accordance with the technical specifications of the manufacturers of the vehicle. By letters** dated 3.12.81 the applicants were informed that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, by virtue of the powers given to him by regulation 8

(2)(b)(iii)*** of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations cancelled 25 the registrations of the motor vehicles in question. On the ap­ plication of applicant 1one of its buses was inspected because, as claimed by them, certain improvements were brought about to its steering system but again the Committee found that it could not be considered as safe for use. Following applications by 30 applicants 1 and 2 which were made in March 1982 for the re­ placement of two of their buses covered by the above decision of 3.12.81, the applications were approved'and the buses in question were replaced by other buses. As against the decision communicated to applicants on 3.12.81 thelatter filed thepresent 35 recourse for a declaration that the said decision is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. * Thefindingsof the Committee are quoted at pp. 799-800 post. · · The letter is quoted at pp. 801-802 post. *** Regulation 8 is quoted at pp. 806-807 post. 794 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic The respondents raised the preliminary objection that applicants 1have no legitimate interest because in the case of oneof theirbusestheyhavesought anewdecisionafter effecting certain repairs to such vehicle and that the subject decision has lost its executory character; and because in the case of applicants 1 and 2 with their applications and steps taken for replacement without reservation of their rights and which applications were granted by the appropriate Authority, lost their legitimate interest. Counsel for the applicants mainly contended. (a) That the respondents acted in excess and or abuse of power and or unlawfully as paragraph (iii) of Regulation 8

(2)(

1. b)did not give power to them to cancel the registration of the motor vehicle of the applicants not having permanently removed same from the Republic. (
2. b)That the respondents acted inviolation of Article 23.1 oftheConstitutionwhichsafeguards therightofownership of property, both movable and immovable, as the subject acts, or decisions, deprived the applicants of theirrightto bethe owners,to possess,to enjoy and to dispose their buses or their property without just compensation being paid in advance. (
3. c)That thesubject decisionsconstitutes a violation of the rules of good administration as the respondents caused the applicants to suffer the expense of the changes on the buses, which were inspected found suitable and safe for circulation, registered as such and after the buses were operating for about two years they decided to cancel their registration. (
4. d)That the subject decisions constitute a revocation of the registration of the said buses which could not be made except in certain exceptional circumstances, namely that the revoked act wasunlawful or if thelaw gives such authority for revocation and that in any event when the act to be revoked has created results which will cause damage to the citizen, the act cannot be revoked. (
5. e)That there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. 795 Ftre Bus Tonr Ltd.v. Republic

(1983)Held, (I) on the preliminaryobjection.

(1)That a person who expressly or impliedly accepts an act or decision of the administration is deprived because of suchaccep­ tance,of a legitimate interest entitling himtomakearecourse for the annulment of such act or decision; that since no express 5 reservation appears orisclaimedtohave beenmadeby applicants when in respect of one of their buses they attempted to comply with the conditions set out in the sub judice decision, theircon­ duct in the circumstances, has deprived them of a legitimate interest to file a recourse in respect of the cancellation of the 10 registration of the said bus because they freely accepted the decision and acted upon it and by theirconduct indeed signified an unreserved acceptance; and that, therefore, the recourse of the applicants in so far as that bus is concerned has to be dis­ missed.

(2)That with regard to the recourse concerning the buses which were replaced, since the application was made after the filing of the recourse challenging the sub judice decision, the pendency of the recourse excludes on the face of it an inference that by conduct the applicants, owners of the said two vehicles, 20 accepted the subject administrative act and thus lost their legi­ timate interest in the matter; that moreover it is by itself obvious and onecanfor certainconcludethat thetwo applicants by the cancellation of the registration of their motor-buses suffered in the interval that elapsed, damage recoverable under 25 Article 146.6 of the Constitution,and therefore the assumption ofjurisdiction by this Court isjustified as the recourse is aimed to restore such rights of theapplicant as are recognizable under the Law; and that if anything, their application to replace the two vehicles could be considered as an effort to mitigate their 30 losses in case theact that caused themis declared by this Court to have been contrary to law and consequently null and void. Held, (Π) on the merits of the recourse:

(1)That the reference to paragraph (in) of regulation 8

(2)(

1. b)is a clerical error and as such it could not affect thevalidity of the 35 subject decision which was taken as it appears from the hand written record on the basis of regulation 8{2)(ii)which provides for the cancellation of the registration of a vehicle if the Re­ gistrar is satisfied that"thevehicle hasbeenrenderedpermanent­ ly unserviceable"; accordingly contention (
2. a)should fail. 40 796 15 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Five Bus Tour Ltd. r. Republic

(2)That the right to property is not a right in abstracto but subject to civil law rights of property and the word property in Article 23.1 of theConstitution has to be understood and interpreted in this sense; that the vehicles in question were imported and sought to be registered and operated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law and the Regulations made thereunder, which regulate matters relating to transport and they impose restrictions for the public safety and for the protection of the rights of others; accordingly contention (b) should fail.

(3)That there has been no violation of the rules of good administration because thecircumstances of the cancellation of the registration of the said vehicles show that same was made after a proper examination of their condition which was found to be unsafe for use on theroads at thetimeof suchexamination and if anything, the respondents wereduty-bound to invoke the said Regulation inthepublicinterest andfor the safety ofthepublic, both passengers thereon and the other road users; accordingly contention (c) should fail. 20

(4)That thereisno merit in thecontention that thesubjudice decision constitutes a revocation of the registration of the buses because regulation 8(b)(

1. ii)clearly authorises the cancellation of the registration ofa vehicleinthe circumstancesprovided thereby; accordingly contention (
2. d)must fail. 25

(5)That there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice because no comparable duty to comply with.these, principles is cast upon administrative bodies with regard to purely administrative matters; accordingly contention (e) should fail. Application dismissed. 30 35 Cases referred to: * Karapatakiv. Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 88 at p.-93; Tomboli v.Cyprus Telecommunications Authority

(1982)3C.L.R. 149; loannou and Others v. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 150at pp. 154155; Myrianthis v. Republic

(1977)3 C.L.R. 165; Zambakides v. Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 1017; 797 Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic

(1983)Pikis v. Republic

(1967)3 C.L.R. 362; Spyrou and Others (NoA.) v. Republic

(1967)3 C.L.R. 478; In re Ali Ratip, 3 R.S.C.C. 102; Evlogimenos and Others v.Republic. 2 R.S.C.C. 139at p. 142; LanitisBros v. The Police,3 R.S.C.C. 10; 5 Kontemeniotis v. C.B.C.

(1982)3 C.L.R. 1027; Republicv. Georghiades

(1972)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents whereby the registration of six of the applicant's buses was cancelled. 10 L. Papaphilippou, for the applicants. A. PapasavvastSenior Counsel of the republic, for the respondents. Cur.adv.vult. A. Loizou J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicants seek a declaration of the Court that the decisionsand/oractsofthe respondentsbywhichtheregistration of motor omnibuses LB724, LJ 617, LZ 647,LZ 646, MB355 and MB 356were cancelled, are null and void and of no effect whatsoever. Applicants 1, are the registered owners of motor omnibuses LZ 646, LZ 647 and LJ 617, of Mercedes make, which were imported into Cyprus fitted with a left-hand drive and when the necessary changes were locally effected and were converted into right-hand drive,they went through theprescribed inspect- 25 ion,and theywereregistered thefirsttwoonthe20thDecember, 1980 and the third on the 20th May,
2. Applicant 7.is the registered owner of motor omnibus LB 724, a Mercedes, which was likewise imported witha left-hand drive and when the necessary changes were locally effected 30 and turned into a right-hand drive vehicle, it was inspected and registered on the 17th March,
3. Applicant 3 is the registered owner of motor omnibuses MB 355 and MB 356, which were also imported with a left-hand drive and when thenecessary changeswereeffected andturned 35 into aright-handdrive, were inspected and registered on the 29th January,
4. 798 15 20 3 C.L.R. Five Bus Tour Ltd.>. Republic A. Loizou J. After a fatal traffic accident occurred at Moniatis, the Chief of Police wrote to the Director-General of the Ministry of Communications &Works a letter dated the24th August,1981, (Appendix 1 attached to the Opposition) and referred to the 5 situation regarding used or second-hand buses and lorries which,as heput it, withthepassage oftime became unsuitable and their circulation onthe roadsconstituted a danger to public safety. He then referred to a meeting of top officials at which it wasdecided that such second-hand vehicles should becalled 10 for re-inspection in order to ascertain their road worthiness. For the purpose a Committee consisting of Messrs. Akkelides and Kapsalis, of the Department of the Electrical and Mechanical Services, of the Public Works Department and the Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Mr. Polycarpou was set up in 15 order to pursue the whole matter. A number of such vehicles wasinspected and the conclusions of the Committee set up for such inspection appear in two documents. The first one is dated 6th November, 1981 (Appendix 2) and another document dated 27th November, 20 1981 (Appendix 3), which is addressed to the Director of the Department of Inland Transport and which reads as follows:"
5. Buses underregistration Nos. LB 724 and U 617: These buses present the following weaknesses: 25 (a) Their steering system was changed from left to right locally and according to the judgment of the technicians who made this change. In the opinion of theCommitteeinorderthatachangeofsteeringsystem be considered safe it must, 30 (i) the vehicle must be constructed in such a way that a change can be made and this should be confirmed by the manufacturers, and 35 (ii) incasethevehicleisconstructedinorder toaccept a change of its steering system, then the change should be made on the basis of technical specifications of the manufacturers and with the use of spare parts which are offered by the manufacturers for this purpose. The Committee believes that as it has been effected, 799 A. Loizou J. Five Bus Tour Ltd. τ. Republic

(1983)the change cannot be considered safe and under diffi­ cult conditions of driving it is likely for the whole system to present problems or even be put out of action with the result the buses to remain substantially under no control. 5 (

1. b)The braking system has been moved from left to right and again without the use of the indispensable spare parts which are offered by the manufacturers for this purpose. The change has been made locally and after several tubes of the system were cut and welded in 10 several parts and in this case, the Committeebelieves that the change is not safe and there is the possibility of problems appearing to the whole system with the result the bus to remain without brakes. (
2. c)The rear part of the beams of the frame of the bus 15 has become rusty to an extent of more than 60% and it is unsuitable for use. (
3. d)The frame of the floor has become rusty in certain points to a degree that make it unsafe for further use. 2. Buses under registration No. LZ 647 and LZ 646: 20 For these buses apply paras, (a), (
4. b)and (
5. d)referred to in para. 1 above. 3. Bus under registration No. MB 356: For this bus paras, (
6. a)and (
7. b)referred to in para 1, above apply. 25 On the basis of what has been said hereinabove, the Committee believes that the said buses are unsafe for use in the condition that they are now. (Sgd) Andreas Akkelides (Sgd) Stelios Kapsalis (Sgd) Simos Kokkinis". On this document there is a record in ink marked, urgent, which is addressed to a certain Mr. Rouvis and which reads: "Έξηγηθεϊται μέ τον κ. Κοκκινίδη καΐ ετοιμάστε διάταγμα προς TO^S Ιδιόκτητε* τών πέντε οχημάτων πού βρέθηκαν ακατάλληλα. Υπάρχει καΐ §κτο δχημα με δύο μόνο προ- 35 βλήματα. 800 30 3 C.L.R. FiveBusTourLtd.τ.Republic A.LoizouJ. Ή διαταγή θα βασισθεί στή νομοθεσία, Κανονισμού? 8(α) (β) καΐ (»). Υπογραφή(ΔυσανάΥνοαστη)'*. In English it reads: 5 10 ("Confer with Mr Kokkinides and prepare anorder to the owners of thefivevehicles which have been found unsuit­ able. There is a sixth one with only two problems. The order will be based on theLegislation, Regulations 8(
8. a)(
9. b)and (ii). . Signature (undecipherable)"). In compliance to it the subject decisions were communicated to the applicants as they appear in their respective files. They areclaimed by therespondents to have been taken in the public interest as being necessary actions for the protection of the 15 public. In respect of motor vehicle LB 724 thecommunicationof the decision is contained in a letter dated the 3rd December 1981, (Appendix 4) addressed to applicant 2. It reads: "Motor-bus under registrationNo. LB 724. 20 Iwishtoinform you thattheRegistrar of MotorVehicles by virtue of the powers given to him by Regulation 8

(2)(b)(iii)of the MotorVehiclesand RoadTraffic Regulations, cancels the registration of your aforesaid motor-bus for the following reasons:- 25 (

1. a)thatthelocally effected changeof theleft-hand steering system to a right-hand one,in order to be acceptable, it must be made in accordance with the technical specifications of the manufacturers of the vehicle (a certificate must be produced or a confirmation of the manufacturers which will specify how such change can be made) and with the use of spare parts which are offered by the manufacturers for that purpose. It is possible under difficult conditions of driving the whole system to present problems or even to be out of action with the consequence of the bus remaining substantially without control. 30 35 (
2. b)By analogy the same apply in respect of the locally 801 A. Loizou J. Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic

(1983)made transfer from left to right of the braking system of the vehicle. (

1. c)The rear part of the beams of the frame has become rusty to a degree beyond 60%, a fact which renders it unsuitable for use. 5 (
2. d)The frame of the floor has become rusty in certain points to a degree that the vehicle becomes unsafe for further use. 2. In order that it will bepossible to revokethisdecision of the Registrar regarding the unsuitability of your vehicle, 10 you must carry out the repairs of the aforesaid defects, technical anomalies, omissions, etc., which repairs will be consonant to the specifications of the manufacturers asthey will appear inaconfirmation or acertification from them regarding the manner in which these repairs and 15 changes must be made". An identical communication was addressed to the owners of vehicle LJ 617 (Appendix 6). For buses LZ 647 and LZ 646, the subject decisions and the communication, (Appendix 7), were based only on the contents of paragraphs (
3. a)(
4. b)and 20 (
5. d)of exhibit 4, whereas in respect of buses MB 356 and MB 355 the decision and its communication (Appendix 5), refer only to paragraphs (
6. a)and (
7. b)of the same appendix. On the application of applicants No. 1, motor-bus LZ 647 was inspected by the sameCommittee on the basis of improve- 25 ments made to it, as claimed by the applicant Company, and it wasascertained that thefollowing parts ofthe steeringsystem were replaced:(
8. a)Their steering arm-rod which leads from the direction box to the wheels. (
9. b)The steering arm-rod which connects the steering arm-rod with the wheels, and (
10. c)The big track-rod connecting the front wheels. The report of the said Committee iscontained in document dated 3rd February 1982(Appendix 8)addressed totheDirector 35 of theDepartment of Inland Transport, inwhich after referring 802 30 3 C.L.R. Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic A. Loizou J. to their aforesaid findings they point out that in spite of the factthatthe saidchangeshavebroughtaboutsomeimprovement to the steering system,yet, the conditions setby the Committee and by which they were asking for an assurance from the 5 manufacturers of the buses that there could be made a change of the steering system and brakes from left to right and that the change should be made on the basis of specifications from the manufacturers, were not satisfied and it was stated that having in mind this, the Committee maintained its view about 10 the said motor-bus to the effect that it could not be considered as safe for use. Following this, a letter dated 19th February 1982(Appendix 9), was addressed to applicants No. 1informing them that the basicconditions setbytheCommitteewerenot satisfied inspite 15 of the improvements brought about to the bus. On the 8th March 1982, an application was submitted to respondent 3 by applicant 2 for the replacement ofmotor bus LB724 a 41 seater, with another"one, a 53 seater. That application was approved on the 9th March 1982as it appears 20 in exhibit 1, blues 9 and 10. On the 9th March 1983 an application by applicants 1was also made for the replacement of motor-bus LZ 646with a new one of Japanese make. The application was approved on the 9th March 1982 and this appears in exhibit 3 blues 9-10. 25 On the 13th February 1982, the present recourse wasfiled challenging the decisions communicated to the applicants as perAppendices4, 5,6and 7 towhichreference hasalreadybeen made. An objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents 30 that the applicants, owners of motor-buses LZ 647, LZ 646 andLB724,havenolegitimateinterest inrespect ofthosebuses in that in the case of motor-bus LZ 647, applicants No. 1, have sought a new decision after effecting certain repairs to the said vehicle and that the subject decision has lost its 35 executory character and that with regard to motor-buses LB 724and LZ646,theapplicantswith their applications and steps taken without reservation of theirrightsand which applications were granted by the appropriate Authority, lost their legitimate interest. In support of the aforesaid propositions I have been 803 A. Loizou J. Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic (1983> referred to the Case Law of the Council of State (1929-1959) at pp.241 and 242and to Spyliotopoullos Handbook of Administrative Law

(1977)pp. 454-455. The question of legitimate interest has come under judicial consideration by this Court in anumber of cases. Ifind,how- 5 ever, more appropriate to refer to the case of Ekaterini Karapataki v. The Rebublic

(1982)3 C.L.R. p. 88, where at p. 93, Pikis J., summed up the position as follows: "Where the decision challenged ceases to have effect, as in this case by the transfer of the applicant to the Ministry 10 of the Interior, to sustain the recourse it must be made to appear, like the case of revocation of an administrative act, that theapplicant suffered, in theinterval that elapsed, damagerecoverableunderArticle 146.6ofthe Constitution. (Seeinter alia, 'Applicationfor Annulment' byTh.Tsatsos, 15 3rd ed., p. 370, Kyriakides v. The Republic, 1 R.S.C.C. p. 66 at p. 74, Christodoulides v. The Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R. 187,at p. 197,and'Hapeshis v. TheRepublic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 550). The assumption ofjurisdiction is justified only where it is aimed to acknowledge or restore such 20 rights of the applicant as are cognizable under the law. Only when such rights of the applicant are at stake, can a litigant validly invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for the nullification of the act complained of*. The Full Bench of this Court alsodealt with the question of 25 legitimate interest in Tomboliv. Cyprus Telecommunications Authority

(1982)3 C.L.R. p. 149,where it was held that a free and unreserved acceptance of an administrative act or decision deprives the acceptor of a legitimate interest entitling him to make an administrative recourse against such act or decision, 30 emanating from words, a conduct from which it can safely be inferred that it was the necessary intention to assent to such a decision. In loannou andothers v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. p. 150 at pp. 154-155Triantafyllides, P.,dealt with the question ofthe 35 reservation of the rights and referred to the case ofMyrianthis v. TheRepublic

(1977)3 C.L.R. 165and the authorities therein cited and summed up the position to the effect that the person who expressly or impliedly accepts an act or decision of the 804 3 C.L.R. Five Bus Tour Ltd. τ. Republic A. Loizou J. administration is deprived, because of such acceptance, of a legitimateinterestentitlingtomakearecoursefor the annulment of such act or decision. I may aswell refer to thecase of Zambakides v. The Republic 5

(1982)3 C.L.R. p. 1017 where the same principles are also ex­ pounded and followed. The question that arises therefore for determinationas far as motor-bus LZ 647 is concerned is whether applicants No. 1 have lost their legitimate interest in respect of that vehicle in view of the repairs effected to it 10 and the application made, seeking a new decision beforefiling the present^recourse. No express reservation appears or is claimed to have been made by applicants No. 1, when they attempted to comply with the conditions set out in the subject decision. Their 15 conduct, inthecircumstances,has deprived themof a legitimate interesttofilea recourse underArticle 146 of theConstitution inrespectofthecancellationoftheregistration of thesaidmotor vehicle as muchas they freely accepted the decision and acted upon it and by their conduct indeed signified an unreserved 20 acceptance. That being so, the recourse of the applicants in so far as motor-bus LZ 647 is concerned has to be dismissed. It could also be dismissed, though this is not necessary for determination in this case, on the ground that thefirstdecision of the respondents, challenged by the present recourse, could 25 be said to have merged intothe subsequent one communicated by the application on the 19th February, 1982 (Appendix 9). As to thepreliminary objection, however, with regard to the othertwomotor-buses,namelyLZ646andLB724isconcerned, different considerations apply inasmuch as the application to 30 replace the two vehicles which was, as already seen, granted by the respondents, was made after the present recourse challenging the subject decisions was made and in thecircum­ stances the pendency of the recourse excludes on the face of it an inference that by conduct the applicants, owners of the 35 said two vehicles, accepted the subject administrative act and thus lost their legitimate interest in the matter. Moreover it is by itself obvious and onecanfor certainconcludethatthe two applicants by the cancellation of the registration of their motor-buses suffered in the interval that elapsed, damage 805 A. Loizou J. Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic

(1983)recoverable under Article 146.6 of the Constitution, and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction by this Court is justified as the recourse is aimed to restore such rights of the applicant as arecognizable under the Law. If anything, their application to replace the two vehicles could be considered as an effort 5 to mitigate their losses in case the act that caused them is declared by this Court to have been contrary to law and consequently null and void. Having come to this conclusion I shall proceed now to examinetherecourse on themerits,but indoingsoI shallcover 10 also an examination of the recourse on the substance regarding motor-bus LZ 647 in case I am found to have been wrong in dismissing the application in respect of it on the ground of lack of legitimate interest. The regulation relied upon on behalf of the respondents in 15 justifying the subject decision is regulation 8 of the Motor Vehicles And Road Traffic Regulations, 1973, and in so far as relevant it reads: *'8-(l) The registration of motor vehicle shall remain in force until it is cancelled under the provisions of this 20 Regulation.

(2)The registration of a motor vehicle shall be cancelled by the Registrar— (

1. a)upon thewrittenapplication oftheownerofthemotor vehicle: 25 Providedthat,wherethemotorvehicleisinpossession of a hire-purchaser, and suchhire-purchaser applies for registration of such vehicle in his name, cancellation of thepreviousregistration shall requirethewritten consent of the person having the absolute ownership 30 of thevehiclein whosenamesuchvehicleis registered. (
2. b)if the Registrar is satisfied that— (
3. i)the vehicle has been destroyed; or (
4. ii)the vehicle has been rendered permanently unserviceable; or (
5. in)the vehicle has been permanently removed from the Republic; or 806 35 3 C.L.R. 5 Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic A. Loizou J. (
6. iv)with the exception of the case of officers of the Republic stationed for service abroad and of the case of vehicles used by the United Nations Force in Cyprus, the licence of the vehicle has not been renewed for three consecutive years.

(3)the Registrar is not bound to give notice of such cancellation". Although the subject decision was as shown on Appendix 3based onregulation 8

(2)(b)(ii) in the communication of same 10 to the applicants, reference wasmade to paragraph (iii) thereof. In view of this a long argument has been advanced on behalf of the applicants to the effect that the respondents acted in excess and or abuse of power and or unlawfully as the said paragraph did not give power to the respondents to cancel the 15 registration of the motor-vehicle of the applicants not having permanently removed same from the Republic. Itisobviousthat thereference to paragraph(iii) ofregulation 8

(2)(b) is a clerical error and as such it could not affect the validity of the subject decision which was taken as it appears 20 from the hand written record on Appendix

(3)on the basis of regulation 8

(2)(b)(ii) which provides for the cancellation of the registration of a vehicle if the Registrar is satisfied that "the vehicle has been rendered permanently unserviceable". Unquestionably that has been the case in respect of the cancel25 lation of the registration of these vehicles. This emerges from the relevant material in the files already referred to and the veryfact oftheexamination oftheircondition bythe Committee of Mechanical Expertsand therecanbenomisconception about ' it. _ .30 In anyevent-though this isnot supported by the facts of the case and the text of the subjudice decision—there is ample authority to support the proposition that even if an act or decision cannot be validly based on the reasons of law actually given in support thereof, but it is nevertheless valid in law for 35 some other reason, such act or decision should be judicially upheld. (Pikisv. The Republic

(1967)3C.L.R. 362andSpyrou andothers (No.1)v. The Republic

(1973)3 C.L.R. p. 478. This ground therefore fails. The second and third grounds relied upon on behalf of the 807 A. Loizou J. Five Bus Tour Ltd. v. Republic

(1983)applicants are that the respondents acted inviolation of Article 23.1 of the Constitution which safeguards the right of ownership of property, both movable and immovable, as the subject acts, or decisions, deprived the applicants of their right to be the owners, to possess, to enjoy and to dispose their buses or 5 theirpropertywithoutjust compensation beingpaid inadvance. Ifindno merit in this argument asthesevehicleswereimported and sought to be registered and operated under the provisions oftheMotorVehiclesand RoadTrafic Lawandthe Regulations made thereunder, that regulate matters relating to transport 10 and they impose restrictions for the public safety and for the protection of therightsof others. Moreover asheld inthecase of In Re Ali Ratip, 3R.S.C.C. 102,by reference to the case of Evlogimenos and2 others v. TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C. 139at p. 142"_„-the right to property is not a right in abstracto but 15 subject to Civil Law rights in property and the word property in paragraph 1 of Article 23 has to be understood and interpreted in this sense". (See also Lanitis Bros v. ThePolice, 3 R.S.C.C. p. 10). The fourth ground is that "the subject decisions constitute 20 a violation oftherulesofgoodadministration astherespondents caused the applicants to suffer the expense of the changes on thebuses,whichwereinspectedfound suitableandsafeforcirculation, registered as such and after the buses were operating for about two years they decided to cancel their registration. 25 The circumstances of the cancellation of the registration of the said vehicles show that same was made after a proper examination of their condition which was found to be unsafe for use on the roads at the time of such examination and if anything, the respondents were duty-bound to invoke the said 30 Regulation inthepublic interest andfor thesafety ofthepublic, both passengers thereon and the other road users. The fifth ground is that the subject decisions constitute a revocation of the registration of the said buses which could not be made except in certain exceptional circumstances, namely 35 thattherevokedactwasunlawful orifthelawgivessuchauthority for revocation and that in any event when the act to be revoked has created results which will cause damage to the citizen, the act cannot be revoked. I find no merit in this 808 3 C.L.R. Five Bus Tour Ltd.. τ. Republic A. Loizou J. ground as the regulation in question, clearly authorises the cancellation of theregistration of a vehicle in thecircumstances provided thereby and I need not.go any further and refer to any authorities in order to say that in any event it could be 5 done in.the public interest. By the sixth, eighth and ninth grounds the applicants claim that the respondents acted under a misconception of fact, that in reaching the subject decisions they acted in abuse of power as they weremotivated by reasons other than those stated,that 10 they were unduly influenced by the fatal accident of the 13th March 1981 at Moniatis and that the subject decisions are not duly reasoned. I can briefly dispose of all these three grounds by saying that none is valid as there has beenneither misconception of fact nor abuse of power and if anything the 15 decision is duly reasoned. The facts of the case as set out in therelevant documentsand summedup earlier in thisjudgment bear out this conclusion. What the fatal accident in question didwas tomake therespondentsexamine thesafety of the buses in question and ascertain their condition in the public interest 20 and in the interest of the safety of the public, and in any event it should not be ignored that thefindingsof the experts of the respondents, as the condition of the buses in question have in no way been contradicted. Finally the complaint of the applicant that there has been 25 a violation of theprinciple of naturaljustice cannotstand. In the case of Kontemeniotis v. C.B.C.

(1982)3 C.L.R. 1027, Pikis J., dealt at length with the Rules of Natural Justice by reference to the Case Law of this Court and English authorities on the subject and pointed out that no comparable duty is 30 cast upon administrative bodies with regard to purely admi­ nistrative matters. Onthis subject, reference also may bemade to the case of the Republicv. Lefkos Georghiades

(1972)3 C.L.R. 594 where the relevant principles were discussed at some length. 35 For all the above reasons this recourse is dismissed butin the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 809