(1987)1987 September 26 (PIKIS J ] IN THE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION COSTISHADJIMINAS, Applicant, ν THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE REVIEW PERMITS AUTHORITY, Respondent (Case No 460/86) Motor transport— The Motor TransportRegulationLaw 9/82 — Rural taxis — Grantof licence — Dependson needs of theparticular community Motortransport— TheMotorTransportRegulationLaw84/84 — PennttsReview Authonty — Powers of AdminisrahveLaw— Generalpnnciples—A publicbodyisnot atlibertyeitherto 5 ignoreitsprevious decisionsbeanng on thesubjectunder reviewor tofollow inconsistent courses — Motortransport— TheMotorTransportRegulation Law 9/82 — Rural taxis— Decision that needs of an arearequire two additionaltaxis— As a result, apermit wasgrantedto one oftfiecandidates — Applicant'sapplicationpostponedpending investigationasto hisintended 10 main occupation — Finally, his application turneddown on groundthat the areaneeded only one additionaltaxi— Authontyshould havefirstrevoked theirprevious decision— Hadthey done so, applicantwouldhave been one of the candidatesfor the one additionallicence The applicant, a displaced person and an inhabitant of Paliometocho refugee housing estate, applied for a licence toruna rural taxi for the needs of such settlement On 28 12 83 the Licensing Authonty decided that the needs of the area warrantedtwoadditionaltaxisoneforthevillageofPaliometochoandonefor theaforesaid refugee settlement Asaresult,theAuthonty grantedalicence tooneof theapplicants,namely Mr HjiChnstofts, inrespectofthevillageof Paliometocho,butpostponedthe taking of a decision on applicant's application, pending investigation of whetherhe intendedtomaketaxi driving hismainoccupation 1352 15 ^ 3C.L.R. 5 10 15 Hadjlmlnas v.Republic In the meantime, an appeal was lodged before the Permits Review Authonty, against the decision to grant a permit to Mr HjtChnstofis The ReviewAuthonty orderedinvestigation astotheneeds ofthearea As aresult of such investigation the Inspector of Transport reported that such needs couldbesatisfied by only one additional taxi Relyingon thesaidreport,theLicensingAuthonty turneddownapplicant's application Inreachingthisdecision the Authonty didnotaddresstheir mind to their earlier decision nor did they seek to revoke it as a necessary prerequisite to the reassessment of the situation Moreover they did not consider at all whether the additional taxi should be centred at the refugee settlement orat the village As applicant's appeal to the Permits Review Authonty was dismissed, the applicant filed this recourse It must be noted that the Permits Review Authonty did not direct its attention to the inconsistent decisions of the subordinate body or clear the mist that cloudedthe letter's decision Held, annulling the sub judice decision
(1)The law makes the grant of a licence fora rural taxi specifically dependent on the needs for taxi services of the particular community (section9
(3)(a)Law 9/82) 20 25 30
(2)Proceedings before the Permits Review Authonty are not confined to review ofthe validity of the decisionofthe Licensing Authonty, butextendto every aspect ofthecase touchingon thepropnety of the application
(3)The subjudice decision should be annulled for misconception offacts defective reasoning and irregulanty of the proceedings A decision-making bodyoperatingin the domain of public law cannot ignore previous decisions beanng on the subject under review, nor is it at liberty to follow inconsistent courses
(4)If the Licensing Authonty were minded to revoke the decision to grant two additional licences, they ought to have revoked such decision first, provided that there existed good grounds for such revocation Had they followedsuch course,itwould havebeenobvious that theapplicantwas one of the candidates for the licence to begranted Subjudice decision annulled Cases referredto 35 Tsoubftas ν Republic
(1983)3 C L R 326 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedismissalby therespondentofapplicant's appeal against the decision of the LicensingAuthority whereby 1353 Hadjiminasv.Republic
(1987)applicant's application foralicencetorunaruraltaxiforthe needs ofthe refugee housing estate at Paliometocho was dismissed. S. Karapatakis, for the applicant. M. Tsiappa (Mrs.), for the respondent Cur.adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. Costis Hadjiminas, a displaced person, is an inhabitant of Paliometocho refugee housing estate situate near the village of Paliometocho. The villagehasapopulation ofabout3,000 inhabitantsand the nearby settlement a population of sixhundred. Hadjiminas applied .ora 10 licence to run a rural taxi for the needs of the settlement. Concurrently, applications were made for the licensing of an additional rural taxi for the needs of Paliometocho until then served byonly one taxi. The Licensing Authority decided on 28th December, 1983, 15 (appendix 3 to the opposition) that the needs of the area for taxi serviceswarranted thelicensingoftwoadditional taxis,one forthe villageand one for thesettlement. Andthey issued apermittoMr. Hadjichristofis, one of the applicants for the provision of an additional taxi service for the village. Respecting Hadjiminas, the 20 only applicant fortheprovision ofataxiservice forthe settlement, they postponed final decision pending an inquiry into his occupation, seemingly with a view to establishing whether he intended tomake taxidrivinghismain occupation (s.5
(9),Law9/ 82).The inquiry revealed that hedidtwojobs, carssalesman and 25 in his spare time shoe repairer. Nothing on record appeared to contradict his declared intention to make taxi driving his main occupation ifsuccessful in hisapplication fora licence. Inthe meantime, anappealhad beentakenagainstthe decision to grant a permit to Mr. Hadjichristofis. The Permits Review Authority directed, in the course of the inquiry before it, a report on the needs of the wider Paliometocho area for additional taxi services.The Inspector of Transportwho makesanassessmentof those needs reported that only an additional taxiwas required to Jt> satisfy the needsof thearea. Reverting to the proceedings before the Licensing Authority connected with the application of Hadjiminas, the Licensing Authority apparently relyingon the aforementioned reportof the Transport Inspector refused the application on the ground that there was no need for an additional taxi.Inso holding, as can be 40 gathered from the minutes of the proceedings before them and 1354 5 3C.L.R. Hadjiminasv.Republic PiLieJ . theirdecision (appendix 13totheopposition)theydidnotaddress their mindtotheirearlierdecision nordidtheyseektorevokeitas a necessaryprerequisite tothereassessmentofthesituation.More importantly,theydidnotconsideratallwhethertheadditionaltaxi 5 should becentred attherefugee settlement oratthevillage.Their decision was founded, it appears, on the material placed before the Permits Review Authority, that is, in proceedings other than those pending before the body though not unconnected with them. 10 Then the applicant himself challenged the decision of the LicensingAuthoritybyappealingtothePermitsReviewAuthority. The appeal wasdismissed forthesame reasonsasthe application was. Hence, the present proceedings. The Permits Review Authoritydidnotdirectitsattention totheinconsistentdecisionsof 15 the subordinate body or clearthe mistthat clouded itsdecision. Beforefocusingattentiononthegroundsadvancedinsupportof therecourse,twothingsmustbenoted (a)the lawmakesthegrant ofalicence fora ruraltaxispecifically dependent ontheneeds for taxi services of the particular community (section 9
(3)(a) Law 9/ 20 82);and (b)proceedings before the Permits ReviewAuthority are not confined to review of the validity of the decision of the Licensing Authority but extend to every aspect of the case touching on the propriety of the application. (A. Tsouloftas v. Republic ofCyprus*)· 25 The decision ischallenged before usas unreasoned or bad for defective reasoning, as founded on a misconception of the facts relevant to the needs of the area for taxi services and lastly for misapplication ofthe lawtofactsof the case. Examination of the proceedings before the Permits Review 30 Authorityandthedecisionthatfollowedconfirmsthattheyadopted thedecision oftheLicensingAuthorityformuchthesamereasons, notably absence of any need for the extension of taxiservicesin the wider Paliometocho area. They did not remedy and did not addresstheirmindatalltotheirregularitiesmentioned earlier,that 35 rendered the proceedings before the Licensing Authority vulnerable to be set aside for inconsistency and failure to appreciate the facts of the case in their proper perspective. They wholly overlooked, as the Licensing Authority had earlier done, •{1983)3C.LR 326. 1355 PtkisJ . Hadjiminasv.Republic
(1987)that the licence given to Mr. Hadjichristofis was granted in the context of the self same proceedings and that the applicant and Mr. Hadjichristofis were both competing for a licence to provide taxi services in the same area. Nor did they consider at all, assuming their decision to confine the extension to the provision 5 ofonlyone taxi,whether thattaxishouldbecentredatthe refugee settlement and not at Paliometocho village. Moreover, they did notdirecttheirattention totheproprietyofthecoursefollowed by thesubordinate bodytoactonthereportofthetransport inspector notwithstanding the fact thatithad not been produced before the 10 LicensingAuthority assuch. Ihave grave reservations whether itwasat allopen tothem to followthatcourse though Iwithhold final pronouncement on this subject asthe subjudice decision isliable tobe setaside on other grounds. 15 At the end, I think there is no alternative but to annul the decision for misconception of facts, defective reasoning and irregularity oftheproceedings.Adecision makingbody operating in the domain of public law cannot ignore previous decisions bearing on the subject under review, nor isitat liberty to follow 20 inconsistent courses. If the Licensing Authority were minded to revoke the decision to grant two additional licences for the satisfaction of the needs of the area for taxi services, they had to revoke that decision first before embarking on re-examination of the issue before them, provided always good grounds existed for 25 the revocation of the first decision. Had they followed that course and had they revoked the first decision it would have become apparent thatapplicant wouldbe acandidate fortheallocation of the one licence for a ruraltaxiapproved forthesatisfaction of the needsofthearea. 30 Forthereasonsindicatedabove,thedecisioniswhollyannulled pursuant to the provisions of Article 146.4(b) of the Constitution andIso order. Sub judice decision annulled. 35 1356