(1987)1987 February 28 CTRlANTAFYLUDES. Ρ] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION KYRIACOSPAPADOPOULOS, Applicant, ν THE WATER BOARDOF NICOSIA, Respondent (CaseNo 897/85) Executory act — Confirmatoryact — Informative act — An act conhrmatoiy of an ear/ierone or of informativenature cannot be challengedbya recourse By letter dated 27 685 the respondent demanded from the applicant £5,400 -an amountdescnbed as estimated expenses and fees in respect of the Water Supply totheproperty of applicantatStrovolos ^ On 13 8 85 theapplicantsought therevision of the said amount By letter dated 22 8 85 respondentinformed applicantthatthedecisionwas basedon Regulations published on24 5 85 Hence this recourse which was filed o.i 23 10 85 Held, dismissing the recourse
(1)The letter of 27 6 85 communicatedto theapplicantwhatandwhyhe was being called upontopay Thecontentsof the letter of 22 8 85 were confirmatory of the earlier decision as well as of informative nature
(2)An actconfirmatoryorinformative cannotbechallengedby arecourse The executory decision in this case was communicated on 27 6 85 The recourse isoutof time Recoursedismissed 10 15 No orderas to costs Cases referred to Pitsitlosv The Republic[1985)3 CLH 2819, Chrysanthouv. The Republic(ί9Β6)3 CLK 1128, Phyiaktidesv The Republic
(1984)3 C LR 1328 1734 20 3 C.L.R. Papadoponlo* v.WaterB o u d of Nicosia Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to demand from applicant the payment of an amount of GE5.400 for the watersupplytoapplicant'spropertyatStrovolos. 5 P.Angelides, fortheapplicant. G.Triantafyllides, fortherespondent. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.readthefollowingjudgment.Bymeans ofthepresentrecoursetheapplicantchallengesthedecisionofthe 10 respondent WaterBoardtodemandfrom himthepaymentofan amount of C£5,400 for the water supply to a property of the applicantatStrovolos. On27June 1985therespondentdemandedfromtheapplicant the payment in advance of the aforesaid amount, which was 15 described asbeingtheestimated expensesandfees inrespectof thewatersupplytothepropertyoftheapplicant. The applicant sought on 13August 1985the revision of the water supply fees, because inhis view they were too high and agreedtopaypartoftheexpensesconcerned. . 20 Respondentinformedtheapplicant,byaletterdated22Augu1985, that the decision regarding the fees payable by him hat. been reached on 7 June 1985 in accordance with Regulations whichwerepublished intheOfficial Gazetteon24May1985and wereputintoforceasfrom 1 January1985. 25 Then the applicant objected on 30 August 1985 against the amount of the watersupply fees and the respondent by aletter dated21September1985reiterateditsalreadytakenearlierstand inthismatter. Counsel for the respondent raised by his Opposition two 30 preliminaryobjections,namely(a)thatthepresentrecourseisout of time,since it wasfiled on 23 October 1985,and (b)that the decision challenged by this recourse is not executory, but confirmatory ofanearlieroneagainstwhichnorecoursewasfiled intimebytheapplicant. 35 Counsel for the applicant submitted that as no reasons were containedintheletteroftherespondentdated27June 1985the 1735 TriantafylHdes P. Papadopoulos v. Water Board of Nicosia
(1987)sub judice decision was communicated properly only on 22 August 1985 and, therefore, the limitation period of seventy-five days prescribed under Article 146.3 of the Constitution must be computed as from that date. From the correspondence between the applicant -through his counsel - and the respondent it is obvious that right from the beginning, when the letter dated 27 June 1985 was ssnt to him, the applicant knew what, and why, he was being called upon to pay. 5 By means of the letter of 13 August 1985 there were not 10 communicated to the respondent any not already known facts justifying a new inquiry intothe matterbythe respondent. In my view contents of the letter of the respondent dated 22 August 1985 were only of an informative nature and there were alsoconfirmed, bymeansofsuch letter,the contentsoftheearlier 15 letter of the respondent dated 27June 1985.Itcannot, therefore, be found thatthe letterof22 August 1985conveyed adecisionof an executory nature. Acts of an informative nature, not being executory, cannot be challenged by a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution 20 (see,interalia,Pitsillosv.TheRepublic,
(1985)3C.L.R. 2819and Cbrysanthou v. The Republic,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1128). Also an act of a confirmatory nature, not being executory, cannot be challenged by a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution (see,interalia,Pbylaktides v. TheRepublic,
(1984)3 25 C.L.R. 1328and Cbrysanthou v. The Republic, supra). Inthe present case I have no doubt that theexecutory decision oftherespondent wascommunicated tothe applicanton27 June 1985 and, as such decision was not challenged by means of a recourse within the period of seventy five days prescribed by 30 Article 146.3 of the Constitution, the present recourse is out of timein relation toit. Inthe lightofallthe foregoing thisrecourse hastobe dismissed; but with no order asto itscosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderasto costs. 1736 35