(1988)1988 May28 [STYUANIDES. J.] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION KATERINA PAPAEFSTATHIOU, Applicant, v. 1.REVIEW LICENSING AUTHORITY, 2. MINISTRY OFCOMMUNICATIONS ANDWORKS, Respondents. (CaseNo.736/85). Road transport—The Road Transport Regulation Law, 1982,as amended— Review Licensing Authority—Rowers—Section 4A
(4). Road transport—The Road Transport Regulation Law,1982, as amended— Cars hiredwithout adriver—Whethersection 5(a)applicable tolicencesin respectthereof—Question determinedintheaffirmative. Road transport—TheRoad TransportRegulationLaw,1982,asamended,sec tion 5(a)—"Carries on" (μετέρχεται) and "intendstocarry on" transport business as hismainoccupation—Turningdownapplicationfor licencesin respect of Ζ cars on ground thatapplicant does not "carry on" transport business as her main occupation—Misconception of law,because there spondents addressed their mindtothefirst leg of theprerequisite "carries on" andfailed totallytoaddresstheirmindtothesecondleg "intendsto car ryon"—This minsconception led tolackofdueinquiryas tothefacts rele vant tothesecond leg. Misconception offacts—Taking into consideration non existentfacts or the non takinginto account of existingfacts—Failure ofdue inquiry causing lackofknowledge ofamaterialfact amountstoamisconception—Findings of fact by the Administration—Presumption as to their correctness— Creating doubt in the mind of the Court is sufficient to displace the pre- 1102 3 C.L.R. Papaefstathiou v. Review Licensing Athority sumption—The twoalternative coursesthatthe Courtmayfollowinsucha case. 5 Theapplicant is theowner of asmalltouristbusiness.Sheapplied for 21licences forΖcars.At thetimeof suchapplication she,already,owned' 4 such cars.Therespondents dismissed applicant's hierarchical recourse againsttherelevant negativedecision of theLicensingAuthority. Thedis missalwasbasedonthegroundthattheapplicant "doesnotcarry on" trans portbusinessashermain occupation. Thesubjudicedecision was annulledonthefollowinggrounds, name- 10 iy> a)Misconceptionof law.Therelevantreasoning isadequately summar izedinthehereinaboveheadnote. (b)Lackof dueinquiry,which was theresult of suchmisconception. 15 c)Misconceptionof fact,inthatapplicantsucceeded increating adoubt as tothecorrectness of thefindingthatshe does not "carry on transport businessas hermainoccupation".Theprinciples analysedby theCourtas regards"misconceptionof fact" aresufficiently summarized inthehereina boveheadnote. Subjudicedecisionannulled. 20 Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Skarosv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 2109; Republic v.Georghiades
(1972)3C.L.R.594; . L. and G. lacovides Enterprises Ltd.v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 25 «οι; PhotiadesandCo:v.TheRepublic, 1964-C.L.R. 102; Christodoulouv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.2243; Leda Travel Ltd. v. TheReviewLicensing Authority
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1742; 1103 Papaefstathiou v. Review Licensing Authority
(1988)"ARISTODEMOS" Real EstateAgencyLtd.v. TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against thedismissal of applicants hierarchicalre courseagainst thedecisionofLicensing Authority toreject appli- 5 cantsapplicationsfor theissueof licencesfor "Z"cars. K.Talarides, for applicant. M.Tsiappa (Mrs.), for respondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDESJ.read thefollowingjudgment.Theapplicant ,Q by this recourse seeks theannulmentof thedecision of the Re spondents,whereby theydismissed hierarchicalrecourse No. 76/
- The applicantcarries onbusiness inPolis Chryssochouunder thename"FONTANA TOURS".Sheishiringself-drivecarsand renders servicestotourists. 15 Theapplicantapplied totheLicensing Authority for thegrant toherof licencesfor 21vehicles withoutadriver. ThePaphosDistrictTransportInspector,on7thApril, 1984, prepared areport (Appendix 2totheopposition).This Inspector 20 inthatreportstated thattheoccupationoftheapplicantis"Hiring (Ενοικιάσεις)andTouristOffice"; thattheapplicantexercises the occupationofhiringof "Z" cars since 1983;shewas the ownerof four "Z" cars,thenumbersof which arequoted.Actually the ap plicant in 1983, applied for the licences for "Z"cars, they were ~<5 granted toher by theLicensing Authority, but,in ahierarchical recourseby others,thenumberwas reduced by theMinister (the competentAuthority atthe time) tofour. 1104 3 C.L.R. Papaefstathlou v. Review Licensing Authority 5 Stylianldes-J. Theapplicantpresentedvivavocehercase before the Licens ing Authority. TheLicensing Authority rejected all theapplica tions,including thatof thepresent applicant, onthegroundthat "Z" cars existing inCyprus could adequately servetheneedsof thecountry. TheApplicant,on25thJanuary, 1985,filedahierarchical re coursetotheRespondent - ReviewLicensing Authority. N 10 TheRespondentson4thApril, 1985,heardcounselfor the ap plicant, whoargued inextenso thecasefor hisclient(seeAppendix7).X TheRespondentAuthority dismissed applicant'shierarchical recourseandrefused thegranttotheapplicantof licences forhir ing withoutadriver inrelationto21vehicles, oranyone.This is thesubjudicedecisonwhichreadsasfollows:- 15 20 25 30 "Αποφασίζεται ηαπόρριψη της προσφυγής διότιαπό τα ενώπιον της στοιχεία η ΑναθεωρητικήΑρχή Αδειών έχει πεισθεί ότι τοκύριοεπάγγελμα τηςπροσφεύγουσας είναιη διεξαγωγήτουριστικών επιχειρήσεωνκαι κατάσυ νέπειαδενπληροίτιςπροϋποθέσεις τουάρθρου5εδάφιο 9τουΝόμου." Ahierarchicalrecourseis notintendedtoreview the correct ness of thehierarchically subordinate organ's decision by refer ence to the soundness of thereasoning propounded in support thereof but,toestablish asecond tierinthedecision-takingprocess, designed toeliminatemistakes aswellas abuseofauthority by subordinates. Bothorgans in thehierarchy arecharged with thesameduty-topromotetheobjects of thelaw by theapplica tionof itsprovision inparticularcases. Generally,itiscompetent for thebodyexercisingpowers in ahierarchicalrecourse,to reviewthelegalityof thedecision takeninthefirst instance- (Tsatsos ·Administration andtheLaw,
(1979),p. 63; Stassinopoulos - LawofAdministrativeActs,
(1951),p. 177 etsequence). 1105 Styllanides J. Papaefstathiou v. Review Licensing Authority
(1988)Thepower of theLicensing Authority is setoutinsection 4A
(4)as follows:"
(4)Hαναθεωρητική αρχήαδειώνδύναταινα εκδώσει μίαντωνακολούθωναποφάσεων: (α)ναεπικύρωσητηνπροσβληθείσαναπόφασιν. 5 (β)ναακύρωση τηνπροσβληθείσαναπόφασιν. (γ)νατροποποίησητηνπροσβληθείσαναπόφασιν. (δ) να προβή η ιδία εις έκδοσιν νέας αποφάσεως εις αντικατάστασιντηςπροσβληθείσης. (ε)να παραπέμψητην υπόθεσιν εις την αρχήναδειών, διατάσσουσατούτηνναπροβήεις ωρισμένην ενέργειαν." lft ("TheReviewLicensing Authority mayissueanyof thefol lowing decisions: (a)toconfirm thechallenged decision; (b)Toannulthechallenged decision; 15 (c)Tomodify thechallenged decision; (d)Toissueanew decision insubstitution of the challenged one; (e)Tosent thecase back totheLicensing Authority order ing thelattertodocertainact.") Thematerial before theRespondents was thefileof theLicens ing Authority inwhich thereportofthePaphosTransport Officer and thestatementof theapplicant before theLicensing Authority wereincluded,andtheoralrepresentation of Mr.Talarides. 1106 20 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Papaefstathiou v. Review Licensing Authority StyHanIdes J. The applicant had already four "Z"cars. She applied for 21 more.Shehadasmall touristoffice inPolisChryssochou.In her oral evidence before us she stated that70% of her income was from thehiringof "Z" cars and30%only from theother branch of herbusiness. The.subjudice decision, however, has tobere viewedonlyonthe materialbefore the Respondents. Mr.Talarides statedclearly andeloquently tothe Respondents thatoneof thebranchesof theapplicant'sbusiness was thehire of self-drive cars. Hereferred totheprovisions of section 5
(9)andheproduceda numberof letters addressed totheapplicant, askinghertomakeavailabletoclients "Z"cars.Hesaid thathis clientsatisfies the requirementsof sub-section 9of section5. Itwas submitted by Mr.Talarides bothinhis written and oral address before thisCourtthatthesubjudice decision is vulnerable, as itis taintedwith misconceptionof fact andlaw, and that paragraph 9of section 5does notapply tolicences inrelationto self-drivecars. Having regard tothewording of thissection,tothedefinition of "public use"vehicle and"vehicle hiredwithoutadriver", I find nomeritinthis submission. Section 5
(9)of the MotorTransport Regulation Laws,1982 and 1984 (Laws Nos9/82 and84/84) readsas follows:- 25 30 "
(9)0>υδεμίαάδειαοδικήςχρήσεωςθαχορηγήται ανα.φορικώςπροςοιονδήποτε όχημαδημοσίαςχρήσεως προς εκτέλεσιν οιασδήποτεχρήσεωςδι'ήναπαιτείταιτοιούτον όχημαδυνάμειτωνδιατάξεωντουπαρόντοςΝόμου, εκτός εάνοιδιοκτήτηςτούτουπείσητηναρχήναδειώνότιμετέρ χεταιηπροτίθεται όπωςμετέλθη.τηνμεταφορικήνεπιχείρησινωςκύριον αυτούεπάγγελμα" ("Noroadservicelicenceshall begrantedof anypublicser vicevehicle for theserviceof anyroadfor which such vehicle isrequired undertheprovisions of thisLaw, unless its owner 1107 Styllanides J. Papaefstathlou v. Review Licensing Authority
(1988)persuades theLicensingAuthority thathecarriesonorintends tocarry ontransportbusinessashismain occupation." Licencesaregrantedtopersonswhocarryon,orintendtocar ry onastheirmainoccupationthetransportbusiness. TheRespondentsmisconceived thelaw bydirectingtheirmind 5 tothefirstleg only-"μετέρχεται"(hecarrieson)- andtheyfailed totally to address their mind to the second leg - "προτίθεται όπως μετέλθη"(orintendstocarry on).Thisis amisconcepion of law, which is agroundforannulment. Misconceptionas tofacts mayconsistof eitherthetakinginto 10 consideration of nonexistingfacts orthenon takinginto account of existing facts; failure tomake adueinquiry causing lack of knowledgeof material facts amountstomisconceoptionof fact(Skarosv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 2109). Theevaluatin of thefacts is within thediscretionary powerof 15 theAdministrative Authority. AnAdministrative Court canonly interfere if thereexistsanimproperuseofthediscretionarypower oramisconceptionconcerningthefactual situationorthenon tak ing intoaccountof material factors. The Courtcannotsubstitute is own evaluation for thatof the 20 Administration. Thereis apresumptioninfavour of the correct ness of thefindingof fact by theAdministration.Thispresump tionis weakened,once theapplicantsucceeds inrenderingpossi ble the existence of misconception of fact on the part of the Administration,even by creatingdoubtsinthemindof theCourt 25 aboutthecorectness of suchfindingsof fact. Insuch acase,the Administrative Judge,findinghimself indoubt, resorts tooneof two courses.Either(a)directs productionof evidence,or(b)he annulstheactsothattheAdministration may ascertain the actual circumstances in a way notleavingdoubts -(Republic(Public 30 Service Commission) v. Lefkos Georghiades,
(1972)3C.L.R. 594;L.&G.IacovidesEnterprisesLtd. v.TheRepublic(\9S6) 3 C.L.R. 2101). 1108 3 C.L.R. Papaefstathlou v. Review Licensing Authority 5 ,Q 15 20 2<r StyHaηides J. An Administrative Authority has aduty tomake a reasonably necessary inquiry for the purposes of ascertaining the correct facts towhich therelevant legislation is tobe applied. Theascer tainment of thetruefactual situation is oneof thefour necessary steps inthamaking of an administrative act,as follows: thestudy and,if necessary, interpretationof therelevant legal provisions; ascertainment of the correct facts; application of the law tothe facts; and decision on the course of action. (Vide "TheLaw of Administrative Acts" by Stassinopoulos
(1951)p. 249; Photos Photiades and Co. v. the Republic of Cyprus throughthe Minis ter of Finance, 1964C.L.R..102,atpp. 112-113). The Respondentsfailed tocarry out thereasonably necessary inquiry for thepurposes of ascertaining thecorrectfacts towhich therelevant legislation is tobe applied,dueto the misconception of therelevant legal provisions. Furthermore, there is adoubtin themindof theCourtabout thecorrectness of thefindings of fact by theRespondentswith regard tothemainoccupationof theapT plicantatthematerial time. The cases of the Supreme CourtNestoras Christodoulou v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 2243;Uda Travel Ltd. v.TheRe view Licensing Authority
(1986)3C.L.R. 1742; "ARISTODEMOS" Real EstateLtd. v. TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R.767 are distinguished from thepresent in that:(a)The RespondentAuthority was notconvinced thattheapplicantswere carrying orintend tocarry onthebusiness of trans port as theirmain occupation. (b)The applicants in those cases were carrying diverse occu pations,but definitely not to any extent theoccupationrequired by paragraph9 of section 5of the Law, „ oe Fortheforegoing reasons, the subjudice decision cannotsur vivejudicial control.Itis hereby declared null andvoid andof no effect, but,in all thecircumstances of thecase, I make noorder as to costs. Subjudice decision annulled. No orderas to costs. 1109