clr/1987/1987_3_767.pdf

(9)— Cars hiredwithout a dnver — Applicant must convincethe Licensing Authontythathe iscarrying orintends tocanythetransportbusinessashis mamoccupation 5 Administrative Law — General pnnciples — Administrative act— The four necessarysteps in the making ofsuch anact— Phohades andCo νThe Republic, 1964 CLR 102at 112 adopted Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Maybesupplementedfrom thematenalin theHie—Maybelaconic, ifitclearlyconveys thereasonofthedecision 10 15 20 25 The applicant company wasmainly involved inthepurchase andsale of immovablepropertythroughoutCyprusandtherentaltotouristsof furnished holiday appartments Theapplicantsapplied totheLicensingAuthonty fora permit inrespectofninecars «hiredwithoutadnver· Theapplicationwas tumeddownand, asaresult, theapplicantsfiledahierarchicalrecoursetothe PermitsReviewAuthonty Therecoursewaseventuallydismissed Hencethe presentrecourse Itsgistrevolvesroundtheprovisionsofsection5

(9)of Law 9/82 Held,dismissingtherecourse

(1)Itisclearfromtheprovisionsof section 5

(9)ofLaw 9/82 thatanapplicant hastoconvince theLicensingAuthority thatheiscarryingorintendstocarryoutthebusinessoftransportationashis mainoccupation

(2)Inthiscaseitteclearthattherespondentauthontydrewitsattentionto theaforesaid provisionofthetaw andapplyingthelaw tothefacts,as they found them, theyrefusedthegrantofa licence Thesubjuchcedecision was reasonablyopento mem 767 Aristodemos Estate v. Republic

(3)Thereasoning of a decision maybe supplemented from thematerialin the file. Alaconic reasoning issufficient, if itclearly conveys thereason ofthe decision. Inthis case applicants' complaint that the sub judice decision was notduly reasoned isuntenable. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 5 Casesreferredto: Photiades and Co v. TheRepublic, 1964 C.L.R. 102, VasosEliadesLimited v.TheRepublic

(1976)3 C.L.R. 293; Petridesv. 77ieflepub/ic

(1983)3C.L.R.'216. JO Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent affirming the decision of the Licensing Authority to refuse the granting to the applicants licences to own and manage ninecars «hired without a driver». S.A. Karapatakis, for theapplicant. M. Tsiappa (Mrs.), for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult LORISJ.readthefollowing judgment.Theapplicants,alimited 20 company, impugn by means of the present recourse the decision of the respondent Permits Review Licensing Authority (set up in virtue of s. 2 of Law 84/84) dated 9.5.85, -communicatedtothe applicant on 21.6.85 -given on a hierarchical recourse to it from adecision of theLicensing Authority dated27.12.84, whereby the 25 respondent Review Authority affirming the decision of the Licensing Authority refused the granting tothe applicant licences to own and manage nine cars «hired without a driver»commonly known as «2» cars. The facts of the present case arebriefly as follows: On25.11.83 30 theapplicant,applied totheLicensing Λ*-.thorityforthegrantingto him of licences for 9 «Z»cars.The Licensing Authority considered the aforesaid application and decided on 27.12.84 to refuse the grant of the licences applied for, communicatingitssaid decision to the applicants by letter dated 9.1.85 (Appendix 5 to the 35 opposition). The applicant on 24.1.85 filed a hierarchical recourse to the 768 *** 3 C.L.R. Aristodemos Estate v. Republic LorisJ. respondent Review Authority attacking the said decision of the Licensing Authority. The hierarchical recourse was heard by the Respondent on 6.4.85, 17.4.85 and 9.5.85 (vide Appendices 7, 8, 9 of the 5 opposition);onthelasthearingtheRespondentAuthoritydecided to dian-.iss the hierarchical recourse; its said decision was communicated to the applicant by letter dated 21.6.85 (vide Apper.dix 16tothe opposition). The applicant, feeling aggrieved, filed the present recourse. 10 allegingthatthesubjudicedecision iscontrarytotheprovisionsof the relevant law, the same was taken in abuse or in excess of powerandthatthe respondent acted underamisconception asto thefacts;thatthe decision wasreached contrarytotherulesoffair administration, and lastlythatthedecision isnotdulyreasoned. ' 15 The respondent authority in its opposition maintains that the subjudicedecision wasreached after due enquiry,on thebasisof all relevant facts and circumstances and under and in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the principles of administrative law,andlastlythatsame isduly reasoned. 20 Asstated bythe learned President of this Court inthe casesof Photiades &Co. v. TheRepublic, 1964C.L.R. 102atp. 112: 25 30 «Itneed hardly be stressed that an administrative authority has a duty to make the reasonably necessary inquiry for the purposes ofascertainingthecorrectfactstowhichtherelevant legislation is to be applied. The ascertainment of the true factual situation is one of the four necessary steps in the making of an administrative act, as follows: the study and,if necessary, interpretation of the relevant legal provisions; ascertainment ofthecorrectfacts;applicationofthelawtothe facts;and decision onthecourseofaction. (Vide«TheLawof Administrative Acts»byStasinopoulos

(1951)p.249). Inthecaseunderconsideration thegistofthepresent recourse revolves round the provisions of s.5

(9)of Law 9/82. Itistruess. 5

(3)and 5

(6)enable the Licensing Authority to exercise its 35 discretion in granting road use licences for vehicles without a driver,i.e.«Z»cars.Thisdiscretionarypower,however.Isnotonly limitedbytheprovisionsofs. 10

(1)&

(2)butalsobytheprovisions 769 Loris J. Aristodemos Estate v.Republic

(1987)of s.5

(9)which,translated intoEnglish,readsas follows: «No road service licence shallbe granted inrespect of any publicservicevehicleforthecarryingoutofanypublicservice for whichsuchavehicleisrequiredbyvirtueoftheprovisions of thisLaw,unlesstheownerthereof convincestheLicensing Authority that he is carrying on or intends to carry out the transport businessashismain occupation.» 5 It isclear from the provisions of the above subsection that the applicant has to convince the Licensing Authority that he is carryingonorintendstocarryoutthebusinessoftransportationas 10 hismain occupation. It is abundantly clear that the respondent authority drew its particular attention to the said provision of the lawand applying the lawtothe facts, as they found them,theyrefused togrant the licencesapplied for. 15 What were these facts appears sufficiently from the material before the respondent and in particular those contained in appendices10,11,12,13,14,and,furthermore, fromtheminutes ofthehearingofthehierarchicalrecourse(appendices7,8and9). Itisclear from the material inthe file thattheapplicants describe 20 their occupation as «real estate agency», and when requested at the hearing of the hierarchical recourse (appendix 7 of the opposition) to state their business, gave in writing inter alia, a document addressed to the respondents inwhich the company's business activities were described; (appendix 10 attached to the 25 opposition). It is clear from this description that the applicant company was mainly involved in the purchase and sale of immovable propertythroughout Cyprusand the rentaltotourists offurnished holidayapartments,althoughitappearstherefrom as well,that theapplicantswhodidnotownany«Z»cars,soughtthe 30 grantofsuchlicencesforthepurposewhichwasincidentaltotheir above-mentioned business. Inthe circumstances,and inviewof the provisionsof s.5

(9)of Law 9/82 itwas reasonably open to the respondent authority to reach thesubjudicedecision. Coming now tothe question of reasoning: Asstated time and again,everymaterialfactorneed notbementionedinthedecision itself and the decision may be supplemented from the material contained in the file. (Vasos Eliades Limited v. The Republic, 770 35 3 C.L.R. Aristodecaos Estate v. Republic Loris J.

(1976)3 C.L.R. 293). Likewise, a laconic reasoning will not be held defective if it clearly conveys the reason of the decision (Petridesv.TheRepublic,

(1983)3C.L.R. 216).Inthecase under consideration there isample material in thefileto show mat the 5 decision wastaken after a proper inquiry and that the facts were correctlyascertainedandthatthelegalprovisionspertainingtothe subject-matter decision were properly taken into consideration and applied tothe facts. The reasoning conveys tothe applicant the reason whyhishierarchical recourse wasrefused, and on the 10 other hand, it enables a proper judicial scrutiny in view of the materialinthe file. Inthe circumstances,the present recourse isdoomed to failure anditis,accordingly,dismissed;lettherebenoorderastoitscosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. 1** 771