1987 April 13 [PIKIS J ) IN THEMATTER OFARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION PANAYIOTISKITSIS. Applicant, ν THE DISTRICT OFFICER PAPHOS (Cases Nos 347/86 and348/86) 'reets and buildings—Buildingpermit—Renewal of—The Streets andBuildings Regulation Law Cap 96—The proviso to section 3—The limits of the discretion thereunder rreetsand buildings—Certificateof approvalof abuildingpartly completed—The Streets and BuildingsRegulationLaw Cap 96—Section 10
(2)—Thelimitsof the discretion thereunder S The applicant, who had obtained from the custodians* of immovable propertyalease orlicence tooccupyanddevelop itintoarestaurant,obtained from the respondent a permit for the erection of a fixed structure for use as restaurant Building work began in accordance with the terms of the contract and a substantial pan of thebuilding was completed wilhm thefirstyear Inorderto legalise work necessary for the completion of the building, the applicant applied for therenewal of thebuilding permit Healso applied fora certificate ofapproval ofthepartalreadycompleted 10 15 The application was refused and the applicant was advised to seek < new confirmation from thecustodiansofthepropertyofthenghttouse itfortounstic purposes and to modify the relevant plans and make provision for a dtsmantablestructure Hence thisrecourse 20 Held, annulling thesub judice decisions
(1)Respondent refused renewal for reasons unconnectedwith his powers invirtue of theproviso tosection 5 of Cap 96 Thediscretion thereunderof theappropriateauthontyis confined toverifying (a)Whether building work commencedand <b») whether renewal conflicts with any building regulation TheCommitteefortheAdministrationof Turkish CypnotProperties 642 **> 3 C.L.R. Kitsis v. Distr. Officer Paphos
(2)The same is true tn relation to the proviso to section 10
(2)of Cap 96 because the discretion given thereunder to issue a certificate of approval is limited toascertaining whether theworkdone ismaccordance with the plans approvedand the terms and conditions of the permit 5 Subjudice decisionsannulled No orderas tocosts Casesreferredto Hadjilosifand Othersν TheRepublic11985)3C L R 171 Anthoupohs ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 C L R 1967 10 Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to renew applicant sbuilding permit for theerection of a restaurant Chr Μ Georghtades for the applicant .io Chr hannides for the respondent „ Cur adv vult PIKISJ read thefollowing judgment The applicant obtained a lease or licence from the custodians of immovable property to occupy and develop it into a restaurant The custodians of the property, namely. The Committee for the Administration of 20 Turkish Cypnot Properties authorized the occupation and use of the property by theapplicant as aforementioned inconsideration of the fact that he had been displaced and on condition that he would vacate the property as soon as the owners returned or his displacement cametoanend Onthestrength of theauthorization 25 of the owners he applied to the Distnct Officer, Paphos, the appropnate authority for building development in the area, for a permit to build a restaurant The plans submitted envisaged the erectionofaprefabncated buildinginviewoflackofownershipon the part of theapplicant The DistnctOfficer acting on the advice 30 of the Town Planning Dept advised modification of the plans counselling the erection of abuilding attachedtotheland inorder for thebuilding tofit intoplans for thetounsticdevelopment ofthe area Heeding the advice the applicant submitted new plans providing for theerection of afixedstructurefor use asrestaurant 35 The application was duly approved and a permit was issued authorizing the implementation of the architectural plan An undertaking was given by the applicant that he would demolish the building and return vacant possession of the land to the custodians as soon as licence was withdrawn or revoked 643 Pihis J. Kitsis v. DIslr. Officer Paphos I
(1987)Building work began in accordance with the terms and conditions of thepermit and a substantial part of thebuilding was completed within thefirstyear Inordertolegalize work necessary to complete thebuilding, application was made for renewal ofthe permit for one more year Also applicant sought a certificate of 5 approval of the part of thebuilding already completed Power ·renew a building permit is conferred by the proviso to s 5 ofth<. Streets and Building Law - Cap 96 - and power to approve a building partlycompletedby the proviso tosubsection 2ofs 10of the same law 10 The application was refused, both parts, for the reasons indicated in the letter of the respondents to the applicant dated 20th March, 1986 No reasons as such are given for the refusal other than those thatmay be inferred from theadvice given tothe applicantas towhat heshould doinordertogiveeffect tohisplans 15 to create a restaurant on the land Firstly, he was advised to seek anew confirmation from thecustodians of theproperty of the right to use the property for touristic purposes Onginally, it must be noted, the applicant had been licensed to use the property for agncultural purposes Subsequently, thetermsof thelicence were 20 modified allowing the applicant to develop the property for tounstic purposes by establishing a restaurant thereon Why this confirmation was sought isnotexplained intheletter,excepttothe extent thatthereasons maybe inferred from thesecondcondition attached to the implementation of the plans of the applicant He 25 was advised tomodify hisplansoncemoreandmakeprovision fora dismantable structure Ineffect therespondentsoughttomodify or revoke the terms of the building permit in exercise of the powers given himby theproviso tos 5 andsubsection 2ofs 10of Cap 96 And theforemost question thatmustbe answered iswhethereither 30 provisions of the law vested power in him to modify his onginal decision The answer is plainly inthe negative, neitherthe proviso to s.5 nor that to s 10
(2)confers power on the appropnateauthontyto modify the terms of the permit or revoke it for that matter The 35 compass of theproviso tos5 was the subject of reviewanalysis in Hadjilosif and Others ν The Republic* On examination of the unambiguous provisions of the law, it was emphasized that the discretion of the appropnate authonty is confined to venfying (a) whether buildings work commenced, and (b) whether renewal 40 conflicts with any building regulations *
(1985)3CLR 171 644 3 CI.Η, Kitsls v. Distr. Officer Paphos plMe J. Evidently respondent refused renewal for reasonsunconnected with thepowers given himby theproviso tos 5 Consequently he exceeded aswellas abused thepowers given himby thepertinent provisions ofthelaw And thesame istrueinrelationtothe proviso 5 to s 10
(2), the ambit of which was the subject of examination in Anthoupohs ν Republic* The discretion given by s 10
(2)is limited to ascertaining whether the work done is in accordance with theplans approved andthetermsand conditionsattachedto the permit The inescapable conclusion is thatthe Distnct Officer 10 refused renewal of thepermitandapproval of thepart completed for reasons wholly extraneous to the powers given him by law Perusal of the records relevant tothe decisions of therespondent reveals that respondent changed his stand in the matter of this building permit after remarks of the Minister of the Interior 15 doubting the soundness of the onginal decision of the District Officer togrant a permit for apermanentstructure As the answer of the DistnctOfficer totheMinistrysuggests thiswas nottheonly occasion that such course was sanctioned Be that as it may the present inquiry is confined to a review of the validity of the sub 20 judice decisions questioned by two separate recourses tned together in thelight of thefact thatthey were directed against two separate aspects of thesame decisions In the result the sub judice decisions are wholly annulled and declared, pursuant to Art 146 4(b) to be wholly void and of no 25 effect whatsoever Letthere be noorderas to costs Sub judice decisions annulled No order as to costs •
(1985)3CLR 1967 645