3 C.L.R. 1988June8 [STYUANIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION NICOSKOLAKKIDES, Applicant, v. THEMUNICIPALITY OFAGLANDJIA, Respondents. (CaseNo. 614/86). 10 Administrativeact—Validityof—Shouldbejudged onthebasis ofthelawin force at thetimeit was taken—Unless thenewlaw expresslyexemptsapplicationssubmittedpriortoitsenactment—Orunlessthere hasbeenunreasonabledelayonthepart oftheadministrationtodealwithanapplication beforeit—Buildingpermit,applicationfor—Theperiod of30daysprovidedfor inArt.29oftheConstitutionisindicativeofthedutyoftheAdministrationtoactexpeditiously,thoughitcannotbesaidthataperiodmore than thatconstitutesalways unreasonable delay—Sixmonthselapsingbetween submissionofapplication andpublication ofnewregulations—Delay unreasonable—Newregulationsinapplicable. The facts and issues raised in this recourse are sufficiently indicated from the headnote. In the light of the principles summarized in the same headnote,theCourtannulled thesubjudicedecision,onthegroundthatthe . respondentscouldnot,inviewofunreasonabledelaytodeal with theapplication,apply,asthey in fact did,new regulations thatcameinto force six monthsafterthesubmissionoftheapplication forabuilding permit Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. .Casesreferredto: LordouandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1968)3GLA.427;" 1193 Kolakkides v. Μ* lity of Aglandjia
(1988)LoizianaHotelsLtd.v.The MunicipalityofFamagusta
(1971)3 CLA. 466; Panayiotopoullou- Toumazi v. TheMunicipalCommittee ofNicosia
(1986)3 CLA. 35; LendandOthersv.DistrictAdministrationNicosia
(1986)3CLA. 2226; 5 TheMunicipalCommitteeofLarnaca v. GeorghiouandAnother
(1988)3 C.LA. 123; Demetriouv.DistrictOfficerLimassol
(1988)3C I A . 481. Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondents whereby applicants application for a building permitwas rejected. 1 0 M. Charalambides,for theapplicants. A. Scordis, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J.read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicant 15 challenges thevalidity of thedecision of the Respondents taken on 16th April, 1986, communicated totheapplicant by letterda ted21st July, 1986, whereby his applicationfor a building permit was rejected on theground thatitwas notin accordor incompli ance with the provisions of Notification under section 14
(1)of 20 theStreets andBuildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96 andLaws 14/ 59 - 15/83, published in the Official Gazetteof 22nd January, 1986, Supplement No. ΠΙ(Ι)ΚΔΠ 11/
- The applicant is theregistered owner of an approved building site, situate within theareaof Aglandjia Municipality,Plot 1194, 25 Block B, Sheet/Plan ΧΧΙ/55.Ε.Π, by the virtue of Registration Β1239, dated 12th Nove,ber,
- 1194 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 Kolakkides v. M' lity of Aglandjia Stylianides J. On 16thJuly, 1985,hesubmittedanapplicationtothe appro priateAuthority undertheStreetsandBuildings RegulationLaw for apermit for theerectionof abuilding consisting of sevenstorey building -shops on the ground floor and six storeys of dwellingflats ontheafore described building site. By Notification undersection 14
(1)of 22nd January, 1986, hereinabovereferred to,theareais separatedintovarious zones. Thebuilding siteof theapplicantisinZoneH
(5)for whichbythe said Notification the following substantial restrictions areimposed:Thebuilding constantis reducedto 1.20:1, thenumberof storeys tothreeandtheheightnotexceedings 37 feet. Itis thecontentionoftheapplicantthathis applicationshould havebeendeterminedonthebasisofthelegalstatusobtainingbe fore·theNotification ΚΔΪΙ11/86;theRespondents'counsel rival contentionisthatcorrectlytheyappliedthelaw inforceatthe time thesubjudicedecisionwastaken. Thematterwithregard tothelaw applicableconcerninganad ministrative actandspecifically anapplicationfor abuildingper mitis notdevoidof authority.ItwasdealtinAndriani G.Lordou &Others v.Republic(CouncilofMinisters andAnother)
(1968)3 C.L.R.427;LoizianaHotelsLtd. v.TheMunicipalityofFamagusta
(1971)3C.L.R.,466; Rena E. Panayiotopoullou - Tou mazi v. TheMunicipal Committee of Nicosia
(1986)3 C.L.R. 35;Lend andOthers v.DistrictAdministrationNicosia
(1986)3 C.L.R.,2226; TheMunicipalCommittee ofLarnaca v. Meropi GeorghiouandAnother,
(1988)3C.L.R. 123&ndAnastassiaN. Demetriou v. The DistrictOfficer ofLimassol
(1988)3C.L.R. 481. Thelegalpositionis by nowwell settled. Ingeneral thelaw •2Q applicableisthatinforce atthetimeanadministrativedecision is taken,unless thenew law expressly excludes from its ambit ap plicationssubmittedbeforeitsenactment Applications for buildingpermitsarenotanexception,provid1195 StylianidesJ. Kolakkidesv.M' lity ofAglandjia
(1988)edthatthereisnounreasonabledelaybytheAdministrationindeterminingtheapplicationofanapplicant TheAdministrationhas a duty toexamine and determine expeditiously applications for buildingpermits.Ifthetimethatelapsesbetweenthesubmission of theapplication andthedateofthedecision,orthedateofthe 5 changeofthelawisnotreasonable,inthecircumstances,thenthe newlawisnotapplicable. Whatisreasonabledependsonthecircumstancesineachparticularcase,subjecttotheoverridingprinciplethattheAdministrationhasadutytoactexpeditiouslyintheinterestoftheindivid- JQ ualapplicant,theproperadministrationandthepublicingeneral. ItisnotablethatArticle29oftheConstitutionimposesadutyon public authorities toattendtoanddecideexpeditiouslypetitions andgiveimmediatenoticeofdulyreasoneddecisionwithinaperiodnotexceedingthirtydays.Thisisindicativeofthedutyofthe ,^ Administrationtoactexpeditioulsythoughitcannotbesaidthatin allcasesof applicationsof buildingpermitstheperiodof thirty daysisthemaximumpermissibleperiod. Inthepresentcasetheapplicationwassubmittedon 16thJuly, 1985.TheNotification undersection 14
(1)(No.11/86)waspublished on 22nd January, 1986-more than six months later. Is thatperiodreasonable?Wastheapplicationdealtwiththereasonablediligenceofproperadministration? ^ InLordoucase(supra)theapplication wassubmitted onthe 17thMay,1967andthenoticeoftheCouncilofMinistersregard- «5 ingtheheightsandstoreysofbuildingwaspublishedeightdays later,on the25th May, 1967.Thisshortperiod wasnotconsideredofsuchanextentthatthebuildingpermitappliedforbythe applicantscould,andshould,havebeenissuedalready. InLoizianaHotelsLtd.case(supra)theapplicantsappliedon the 16th September, 1970.On29th January, 1971by Notificationpublished in theOfficial Gazettetheareawithin whichthe property of theapplicants wassituatewasdeclared touristzone andthemaximumnumberofstoreysofbuildingswaslimitedto 1196 ^ 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 2« ™ 35 Kolakkides v. Μ*lity of Aglandjia Stylianides J. two.On29thMarch,1971theRespondentMunicipality informed theapplicantsthat, inviewof thesaidNotification,theirapplica tion for a building permit was refused. Itwas held thattheRe spondentswereguiltyof unreasonabledelay andthatthelawapplicable was thelaw inoperation before the29th January, 1971 (before thenewNotification). InTheMunicipalCommittee ofLarnaca case, theapplicants submittedtheirapplicationonthe14thofAugust, 1980-the15th being apublic holiday - thechanges inthelaw werepublishedon the16thof AugustandtheFullBenchdecided thatthelaw appli cable was thatof the 16th,thatis thelaw thatcamein force the day followingthesubmission oftheapplication. InDemetriou case theapplicant submitted herapplicationon 29thJune,1985 for apermittobuild ashopatAlaissavillage,Limassol district.On27thSeptember, 1985 Regulatory Administra tiveAct 243/85was published intheOfficial Gazetteof the Re public, whereby theland of theapplicant was included in zone "Z" entailing manyrestrictions,including reductionof thebuild ing constantfrom2.2:1 to0.01:1. TheRespondenton23rd November, 1985turneddown theapplication asitwas notcompati ble with the provisions of the aforesaid Regulatory Order, Notification of 27thSeptember, 1985.TheCourtheldthatthepe riodthatelapsed from thedateof thefiling of theapplication to thepublication of thisNotification of 27th September, 1985,al mostthreemonths,was ampletimefor theRespondenttoexam ineanddeterminetheapplicationandthedelay todosoafter the 27th September, 1985, was unreasonable and, therefore, the ap plication should bedeterminedonthebasisof thelaw inopera tionbefore 27th September, 1985. Inthepresentcasesomeof thedetailsregarding thestepstak en in theconsideration of the application are set out in thead dresses.The appropriate Authority did notexercise reasonable diligence. Thetimethatelapsed from thedateof thefiling ofthe applicationuntilthedateof theNotification 11/86was morethan enoughfortheAdministrationtodeterminefinally theapplication. 1197 Stylianides J. Kolakkidesv.M' lity of Aglandjia
(1988)AnydelaysbyGovernmentDepartments,advisersorothers,cannot labouradvesely tothecitizen. Sixmonthsperiod shouldnot bedeemed asreasonable. Itisunreasonably long.Thefact that the subjudice decision was taken on the 16th April,1986and communicated toapplicantbyletterdated21stJuly, 1986,more 5 than three months after the date of the decision, has no direct bearingontheissueunderconsideration,thoughitmaybeindicativeof theindifference of theemployeesof theappropriateAuthority.TodojusticetotheMayorandtheMunicipalCouncilof Aglandjia, wehavetoplaceonrecordthattheappropriateautho- ,( rityatthematerialtimewastheImprovementBoardof Aglandjia chaired by the District Officer of Nicosia.The Mayor and his Councilresumed office invirtueof theMunicipal Corporations Law, 1985(No. 111/85)on 1stJune,1986. InviewoftheabovetheRespondentsshouldhaveappliedthe , Laws and Regulations in force atthetimeof the submissionof theapplication. Intheresultthepresentrecoursesucceeds.Thesubjudicedecisionisherebydeclarednullandvoid.Lettherebenoorderasto costs. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1198 2