(I9S4) 1984 March 24 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.J IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION MICHALAKIS SAVVA, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, Respondent. (CaseNo. 303/80). Administrative Law—Inquiry—Due inquiry—Anindispensable prerequisite for the validity of administrative action—Refusal of application for permit to import a duty-free motor vehicle— Applicantnot asked to undergo an examination, regarding his disability, by a Government Medical Boardas envisagedby the 5 relevant legislative provisions—Sub judice refusal annulled for lack of due inquiry. The applicant who was deaf and dumb from birth applied to the respondent to begranted a permit to import a duty-free motor vehicle. The respondent turned down his application 10 on the ground that it could not begranted on the basis of the legislative provisions governing such a matter. Hence this recourse. The applicant, however, was not asked by the respondent to undergo an examination regarding his disability by a Government Medical Board, as envisaged by the relevant 15 legislative provisions. Held,that due inquiry is an indispensable prerequisite for the validity of administrative action; that the failure of the respondentMinistrytohavetheapplicantexaminedbyaGovernment MedicalBoard amountstolackofdueinquiry inamanner 20 rendering fatally defective the exercise of the relevant powers £SS2 3 C.L.R. Sima v. Republic of the respondent; accordingly the sub judice decision must be annulled. Sub judice decision annulled. Cases referred to. 5 Constantinou v. 'Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1548; Photiades & Co.v. The Republic, 1964 C.L.R. 102 at p. 112; Nicolaidesv. Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 585; HjiLoucav. Republic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 854; Georghiades v. Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 653; 10 Philippos Demetriou & SonsLtd. v. Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 444; 1I Constantinou v. Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 190; Economou v. Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 420; Fisentzides v. Republic
(1971)3 C.L.R. 80; 15 Ioannides v. Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 318; Tourpekiv. Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 592; Nicolaou v. Minister of Interior
(1974)3 C.L.R. 189; Kyriacouv. Republic
(1975)3 C.L.R. 37; Constantinidou v. Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 86; 20 HadjiYiorki v. Republic
(1977)3 C.L.R. 144; Antoniouv. Republic
(1978)3 C.L.R. 308; Ioannides v. Republic
(1979)3 C.L.R. 227; HadjiPaschali v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 101; Mikellidouv. Jfc;>tiWic
(1981)3 C.L.R. 461; 25 Karageorghis v. Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 435; Messaritis v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 238. Recourse. Recourse against the dismissal, by the respondent of applicant'sapplicationfor a permitto import aduty-free motor 30 vehicle. 1553 Sana v. Republic
(1984)C. Loizou, for the applicant. S. Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse the applicant complains against the decision of the respondent Ministry of Finance to dismiss, on the 5th July 1980, his application for a permit to import a duty-free motor vehicle. 5 The applicant is deaf and dumb from birth and a graduate 10 of the School for the Deaf in Nicosia. The applicant's driving licence is endorsed with certain conditions because of his said disability. On the 20th July 1980 he applied to the Ministry of Finance to be granted the permit in question as a disabled person but 15 his application was dismissed on the ground that it could not be granted on the basis of the legislative provisions governing such a matter. The said provisions, as well as relevant to them case-law, havejust been referred to inthejudgment delivered bymetoday 20 in the case of Constantinouv. The Republic (case No. 302/80)* and to that extent such judgment has to be read together with the present one. The applicant in this case, like the applicant in the Constantinou case, supra, was not asked by the respondent to undergo 25 an examination regarding his disability by a Government Medical Board, as envisaged by the aforementioned legislative provisions and, thus,itssubjudice decision wasreached without due inquiry, in a manner rendering fatally defective the exercise of the relevant powers of the respondent. 30 That due inquiry is an indispensable prerequisite for the validity of administrative action has been stressed at least as far back as Photos Photiadesand Co. v. The Republic, 1964 C.L.R. 102, 112 and has been reiterated, year after year, in case-law of our Supreme Court (see, for example, Nicolaides 35 v. The Republic,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 585, HjiLouca v. TheRepublic, * Reported in
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1548. 1554 3 C.L.R. Savva v. Republic Triantafyllides P.
(1966)3 C.L.R. 854, Georghiadesv. The Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 653, PhilipposDemetriou and Sons Ltd. v. The Republic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 444, Constantinou v. The Republic,
(1969)3 C.L.R. 190, Economou v. The Republic,
(1970)3 C.L.R. 5 420, Fisentzides v. The Republic,
(1971)3 C.L.R. 80,Ioannides v. TheRepublic,
(1972)3 C.L.R. 318, Tourpeki v. 77je Republic,
(1973)3 C.L.R. 592, Nicolaou v. 77/eMinister of Interior,
(1974)3 C.L.R. 189, Kyriacou v. 77ie Republic,
(1975)3 C.L.R. 37, Constantinidou v. 77ie Republic,
(1976)3 C.L.R. 86, Hadjiyiorki 10 v. r/ie Republic,
(1977)3 C.L.R. 144, Antoniou v. 77^ Republic,
(1978)3 C.L.R. 308, Ioannidesv. 77ie Republic,
(1979)3 C.L.R. 227, HadjiPaschali v. Γ/re Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 101, MiAre///rfoM v. 77?e Republic,
(1981)3 C.L.R. 461, Karageorghis v. TheRepublic,
(1982)3C.L.R.435 and Mesaritis v. 77ie Republic, 15
(1983)3 C.L.R. 238. In the light of all theforegoing Ihave reached the conclusion that, as thefailure of the respondentMinistry to have theappli cant examined by a Government Medical Board amounts to lack of due inquiry, the sub judice decision of therespondent 20 has to be annulled. I will not,however, make an order as to thecosts of thiscase. Sub judice decision annulled. No order as to costs. 1555