(1987)1987October8 (PIKIS J ] IN T H E MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF T H E CONSTITUTION DEMETRIS FACONTIS, Applicant, ν T H E REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, T H R O U G H
- T H E MINISTRY O F COMMUNICATIONS A N D WORKS, T H E REVIEW PERMITS AUTHORITY, T H E PERMITS AUTHORITY, Respondents ' (Case No. 801/85). Motor Transport — TheMotor TransportRegulation Law 9/82, section5
(9)— Cars hired without a driver— Whetherlicensing ol', within ambit ofsection5
(9)— Question determined in the affirmative (L. Ρ Loucaides Ltd. ν Republic
(1987)3C.L.R 1511adopted). The tssues in this case are: (a)Whether section5
(9)of Law 9/82 is applicable to ·Ζ> cars,and (b) Whether the sub judice decision is liable to be set aside for misconception of facts. Held, dismissing the recourse-
(1)For the reasons expounded in L.P. LoucaidesLtd v. TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1511 the licensing of Ζ cars iswithin the ambit of the aforesaid section.
(2)In thelight ofthematerial beforethePermits ReviewAuthonty itwas at the least open to them to find that applicant failed to meet the relevant requirements of section 5 sub-section 9 of the law. Recourse dismissed. CasesreferredtoL P. Loucaides Ltd. v. The Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R.1511. 1516 3 C.L.R. Facontisv. Republic Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to. grant applicant a licence to own, manage and run a number of cars for the purpose of hiring them 10 others 5 Chr Clendes. for the applicant St loannsdes (Mrs) for the respondents Cur adv vult PIKISJ read the followingjudgment As in Recourses 800/85* inwhich judgment was given earlier today the first issue calling for 10 resolution is the applicability of Section 5 sub-section 9 of The Transport Regulation Law, 1982 (9/82) to carsdesignated for hire to thud parties, commonly known as «2» cars For the same reasons to those indicated in thejudgment in the aforementioned case the answer ts in the affirmative, and the requisites laid down 15 therein must be satisfied before aperson is licensed to acquire«Z» cars Ineed not repeat the content of that decision,it issufficient if a copy is appended hereto and is read a^,an integral part of this judgment Consequently the argument laised on behalf of the applicant that the decision of the respondents, the Permits Review 2d Authonty is bad for misconception of the law fails It remains to decide whether their decision is vulnerable to be set aside for misconception of thefacts,specially thoserelevant to the business or occupation of theapplicant and hisfuture intentions with regard to his occupation 25 The inquiry of the respondents revealed that at the time of the application the main occupation of the applicant was that of importer and trader of cars and machinery The hire of cars was a wholly secondary activity, independent from his pnncipal occupation He was hiring the one «Z»car he owned to a firm of 30 professional transporters on a yearly or penodical basts Hardly any concrete evidence was adduced before the respondents establishing a plan on the part of the applicant to make the transport business his mam occupation inthe future In the light of the matenal before the Permits Review Authonty it was at the 35 least open to them to fi:idthatapplicant failedto meet the relevant requirements of Section 5 sub-section 9 of the law In view of this finding the application must be dismissed and Iso direct The sub *Reportedm
(1987)3CLR 1511 1517 PtklsJ. Faconti·v.Republic
(1987)judicedecision isherebyconfirmed pursuanttotheprovisionsof Article146.4(a)oftheConstitution. Recoursedismissed. 1518