clr/1988/1988_3_1257.pdf

(1988)R. Petridou (Mrs.), for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the followingjudgment. This is an application for the review of adecision of theDirector of Mines refusing an application for aprospecting permit toprospect forquarry materi- 5 als over an area of two square miles bounded by Armenochori Pareklissia and AyiosTychonas villages,intheLimassol district. The permit was refused for environmental reasons. The District Officer expressed theview thatquarrying operationswould hamper thedevelopment of thearea, whereastheCyprusTourism Or- 10 ganization advised that it would have detrimental consequences for tourism. Applicant challenges the validity of thedecision for two reasons:First, for misconception offacts arisingfrom the erroneous assimilation ofan application for aprospectingpermit (theappli- 15 cation of the applicant), with an application for a quarrying permit. Second, for bad faith on the part of the respondents stemming from thefailure of the Ministerof Industry and Commerce to honour an oral promise to approve applicant's request for a prospecting permit upon agreement toabandon aquarryingpermit 20 atMitserovillage.Therespondentsrefuted thesuggestion thatthe subjudicedecision is fraught with misconception of facts orthat the administration is guilty of badfaith. In viewof thedispute as to the facts relevant to what wasexchanged atan oral interview between the applicant and the Ministerof Commerce and Indus- «r try, the applicant was given anopportunity tosubstantiate by affidavit his allegations. He did not take up this opportunity and eventually he did not seek to substantiate his contentions by the adduction ofevidence. The correspondence between theapplicant and theauthorities ™ does not betray any sign of acknowledgment of theallegations of theapplicantconcerningthepromisesallegedlygiven bytheMinister. Examination of the documentary evidence before me does indicate that thequarrying permitissued totheapplicant atMitse1258 3.C.L.R. 5 10 ,c 25 - Pikis J. rowas cancelled with his consentfollowing objections of the in­ habitantsof thevillageand,itwas replaced by anew quarry per­ mitelsewhereintheMitseroarea.Theapplicantdisposed of part of his rights under the new quarrying permit for an amountof £24,000. r. . ,. : . . - , . . x Λ , Counselfor theRepublicdiddraw theattention of theCourt to thefact thatthe power toissuea prospecting permithasbeendel­ egated totheDirectorofMinesinwhomsolecompetenceveststo issueapermit. Every suggestionof interference with theexercise of thepower orsubordinationof itsexercisetothedictatesof the MinisterofCommerceandIndustrywasrejected asunfounded. Itis unnecessary in thiscase-to determinewhat would bethe implicationsin-law;of anypromisegivenorirepresentationsmade by aMinister inrelation to-theexerciseof statutory powers en­ trusted to an officer of his department.The question does not ariseasIfind theallegations of theapplicantunsubstantiatedand as sucharerejected. "* * * -1? 20 Mylona v. Republic '' - * Indetermining theapplication for aprospecting permitit was legitimate for the.DirectorofMinestotakeintoconsiderationand reflect upon*.theultimateobjectiveof theapplicantwhich inthis case was to explore theground for aquarrying permit.Environ­ mentalconsiderations areinvariably relevant iii thecontextof ex­ aminationof anapplication for aprospecting or quarrying permit. Such operations unavoidably affect the environment and haverepercussions ontherightsof others. ι: ι Theinquiry madeinthiscaseintothejustification of theappli­ cation for a prospecting permit was adequate and the decision reachedreasonably opentotheDirectorof Mines.Consequently, theapplicationisdismissed. In:the.result'thesubjudice decision is confirmed pursuantto theprovisions of para.4(a)of An. 146of the Constitution. ;t A \ ι Ο Γ • / i t ι*. . • •'·.· y · l ' ' • > .»·^ Recourse dismissed. , - .. / •' Noorderas tocosts. , - • t - ·. •· Ί Λ259 v