(1988)1988July20 [SAWIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION GEORGMOSANDREAEVANGELOUANDOTHERS. Applicants, v. THEMUNICIPALITYOFLIMASSOL, Respondents. (CaseNo.620185).. Administrativeact—Validityof—Shouldbedeterminedonthebasisofthelegalandfactualstatusapplicableatthetimeofitsissue—Exceptiontothe ruleincaseofunreasonabledelayonthepartoftheadministrationtoissue adecisionconcerningtheapplicationbeforeit. Inthiscase,theapplicantsapplied foradivisionpermittodividetheir 5 landintobuildingsites.Beforecommunicationofanydecisiontotheapplicants, there was issued a decision for the construction of a mainroad throughtheapplicants'lands.TheCourtheldthatinviewoftheunreasonabledelayonthepartoftherespondentstotakeadecisionconcerningthedivisionpermit,therespondentcouldnotrelyontheplanforthenewroad JQ andturndowntheapplicationordemandreadjustmentofapplicants'plan. Subjudicedecisionannulled. £150costsinfavourofapplicant. Casesreferredto: LordouandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R.427; LoisianaHotelsLtd. v.The MunicipalityofFamagusta
(1971)3CJL.R. 466; 1512 15 3 C.L.R. Evangelou v. LimassoIM'lity PieridesandOthersv. TheMunicipalityofPaphos
(1986)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. . " , . . " Recourseagainst therefusal of therespondentstograntappli cantsadivision permitof theirpropertyintobuilding sites. D.Michaelides(Mrs.), for theapplicants. Y. Potamitis, for therespondents. , Car. adv. vult. SAVVIDES J.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantsin thisrecourseprayforthefollowingrelief: ΙΟ 15 (a)A'declaration of theCourtthatthe refusal and/oromission of therespondentstoissueadivision permitof theirpropertyinto building sites isnullandvoid. (b)Adeclarationof theCourtthatthedecision and/oromission of therespondentsnottoissueadivision permitof theirproperty into building sites was taken in excess and/orabuse of power and/or contrary to the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96 and/ortherespondentsactedinviolation of theprinciples ofgoodadministration." Thefacts of thecaseareasfollows: 20 25 Theapplicantsareco-ownersin l/3rd undivided shareeach, of plotNo.404,sheet/planLiy/41,locatedatthelocality of Kokkinoyia,'of Ayia Phylaxis, Limassol, covered by RegistrationNo.
- ' ' · ν . • ' . : . ' Λ. - Onthe16thAugust;'1978, theapplicants submitted anapplicationfor thedivision of thesaidpropertyintobuilding sites.Atthe material time applicants' property was outside'the water'supply area andtherewas a problem as to thedivision of theproperty 1513 SavvidesJ. Evangelou v.LimassolM' Hty
(1988)into building sites.In 1980theWaterBoarddecided toinclude applicants' property within the water supply area. The respondents brought thisfact to thenoticeof theapplicants andasked them to readjust their plans in accordance with the new street planning. Theapplicantsin 1983submittednewplans,asrequested, for thedivisionoftheirpropertyinto33buildingsiteswhichtherespondentssubmitted totheWaterDevelopmentDepartment,the Electricity AuthorityofCyprusandtheCyprusTelecommunications Authority for their observations and advice. As noreply JQ wassenttotheapplicantsconcerningtheirapplication,applicants, throughtheircounsel,wrotetotherespondentsonthe27thJune, 1984,complainingagainstthedelayoftherespondentstoinform themaboutthefateoftheirapplicationstressingthefactthatdivisionpermitshadalready beengrantedinthesameareatopersons ,^ whohadappliedlaterthantheapplicantsfor thedivisionoftheir property. Counsel for applicants concluded hisletter byasking for an early reply on the matter with reservation of applicants' rightsfor anydamagewhich theymighthavesuffered duetothe unreasonabledelayoftherespondentsinreplyingandasaresult, ^0 ofthedelayindevelopingtheirproperty. Therespondentsattheirmeetingof4thJune,1984,approved aplan for theconstruction oftwomainroadsoneof whichwas, asplanned,passing through theaforesaid propertyof theapplicants.Negotiations inthisrespect hadcommenced earlierinthe 25 sameyearbetween therespondentsandtheTownPlanningAuthorities. Accordingtothefacts setoutintheoppositiontheapplicants wereinformed abouttheapprovalofsuchroadandwereaskedto submit new plans taking into consideration the proposed con- ™ structionofthenewmainroad.Theapplicantsdenythattheyever receivedanysuchletterorthatitwasevercommunicatedtothem thattheirapplication couldnotbegrantedunlesstheirplanswere tobemodified. 1514 5 3C.L.R. Evangelou v.LimassolM' lity , SavvidesJ. Itisalsostatedinthefacts setoutintheopposition thatother plotsweredivided intobuilding sitesin that areaandthat they* weredividedbyvirtueofpermitswhichweregrantedbeforethe decisionofthe4thJune,1984wastaken. Fromwhatemanatesbothfrom therelief prayedandthewrittenaddressofcounselforapplicantsandtheargumentsadvanced isthattheapplicantshavetreatedtheomissionoftherespondents toreply.and/oractontheirapplicationwithinareasonabletimeas arefusal togranttothemapermitandtheyhavechallengedsuch omissionasarefusal togranttheirapplication andissuetriepermitappliedfor. Byherwritten,address counsel for applicants submitted that bearinginmindthedatewhentheapplicationoftheapplicantsfor divisionoftheirpropertywasmade,adecision shouldhavebeen taken atleast asearly asMarch, 1983when thevariousauthorities involved had already given their consent for the;division.* Though"counselfortherespodentsallegesthatthedivisionofthe property into building sites was approved on 4th November, 1983,neverthelesssuchdecisionwasnevercommunicatedtothe applicants.Onthecontrarywhereastherespondentshave sodecided,as.alleged,theydelayedsendingtheirleply sothatinthe meantimetheywereafforded theopportunityofdecidingupona streetplanning schemeincludingtheconstruction ofanewmain roadpassingthrough theproperty of theapplicants,a,decision which'was taken asallegedonthe4thJune, 1984,i.e.,sixyears aftertheoriginalapplicationoftheapplicantswassubmittedand bywhichdecisionanewstate.of affairs wascreatedchangingthe legalandfactualstatusexistingtillsuchdate. , <»· ' ' Thequestion ofachangeinthelegalandfactual statusbetweenthedatewhenan,application ismadeandthedatewhena decisionistakenonsuchapplicationcameupfor consideration before thisCourtinanumberpf(cases.Theprincipleemanating fromsuchcasesisthatthevalidityofanadministrativeactofthis natureisdeterminedonthebasisofthelegalstatusatthetimeof itsissueandissubjecttotheexemptionthatthepre-existinglegis1515 . . Savvides J. Evangelou v. Limassol M' lity
(1988)lationisapplicable when therehasbeenanomission onthepart oftheadministrationtoperform,withinareasonabletime,whatit wasduty bound todobefore thechangeof thelaw.See,inthis respect,AndrianiLordouandOthers v.TheRepublic
(1968)3 C.L.R.427,LoisianaHotelsLtd. v.TheMunicipalityofFama- 5 gusta
(1971)3C.L.R.466,MarinaGeorgePieridesandOthers v.TheMunicipalityofPaphos(
(1986)3C.L.R.1769). Asalreadyexplained theapplicantssubmittedtheirapplication in 1978 but such application could not beconsidered until the propertyoftheapplicantswasincludedintheWatersupplyarea. IQ In 1983theapplicantssubmittednewplansincompliancewith thedirectionsgivenbytherespondentstakingintoconsideration theexistingstreetplanning.Itisallegedbytherespondentsthat applicants'application wasapprovedon4thNovember, 1983and that theirdecision wascommunicated to applicants.The appli- 15 cants deny that they ever received anynotice from therespondents that their application wasapproved. In fact having gone through the material in thefile of theMunicipality I could not traceanyletter addressed totheapplicantsoranyrecordofany noticeirrfctfming themthattheirapplicationwasapproved.Onthe «0 contrarywhatappearsinthefileisthatearlyin 1984therespondentswereconsideringthequestionofthecreationofanewmain roadpassingthroughthepropertyoftheapplicantsandthatthere were communications in this respect between the respondents andtheTownPlanningAuthorities. It issubmitted bycounsel for applicants thattill4thNovember, 1983therewasnoobstacleingrantingthepermitappliedfor and had therespondents communicated theirdecisionofhaving approvedthepermitsubject totheconditionsetoutthereintheapplicantswouldhaveproceededtodividetheirpropertyaccordingly.Asalreadymentioned applicantsdenythattheyeverreceived suchletterandtherespondentsfailed toprovethatanyletteror noticecommunicatingtheirdecision wassenttotheapplicants. In thecircumstancesof thepresentcaseandbearinginmind 1516 χ it · · • 3 C.L.R. Evangelou v. Limassol M' lity Savvides J. the principle emanating from the cases mentioned hereinabove I find that in view of such unreasonable delay on the part ofthe respondents.to determine the application and/or.communicate their decision which is alleged to have been taken on the 4th Novem ber, 1983, tothe;appUcants,the fact that in June, 1984 the re spondents decided tochange the legal and factual status by the creation"of a new main road passing through the property of the applicants isnot ajustification for refusing the permit or demand from the applicants to submit new plans taking into consideration the,existence of an intended new mainroad passing through their property. ;yir ,, !·•,„ :. ν;,., /.·,,,..v.. In the.present case the respondents failed to exercise their dis cretion properly and thus they have acted in violation of the law. ..'For the above reasons*the refusal and/or omission of the re-' spondents to issue thepermit applied for has to be1annulled andis hereby declared null and void with £150.- against costs in favour r. ofthe.apphcants,,, ; , • , ^ ' - . · - ; <• r v ,' -«.u> Sub juriice decision, annulled with £150.- costs infavour of applicants. <*,»>< •\-, '• • .' ' ' . '*'.',*. ,>li. ,1. -,.V.<\" ·..-/'. .;c '-\S ! '**» •. ' ; ' .· V" '· ' , . : ..ι J . ; . · , • . ' ι , ' , ' * ! . ' . . · 1 η ' ' . /.·'.' *.-· Lri; -.t: , i X , . . • . ! - . ' . n · ' : : (ii • ' ·„.•'.' • ,. '· · . ·' j . ..->•., , " - 1 iK.·!^'* ' · •*"· *' "· . . V (•>' ^ .•-·.-.)-»- ' ' • . . . " -it "i i f , . " jι.*, „. ""* ...;.· .^S··'. s. : π ΐ . . ' - ' ! \ <• . •.*,' - . ' > > .·1 ν : '-- \ ' ' S i ' W ' t J u '.l/wS*i\? ·:, .' . L y ' . . * - - - \ , ' · . • ' · 1. · .j .· .' >'M.. ι '.'-",•' ? ' . ' . '•. * ' r^jη -.· · ί » ΐ ' - .'> '.'!i rr '•_,'• ι , α ν• i! ' it' •>π,· . , • i. > ·.. '. ι!ΐ'·;.. ^ k '· η - L/.' •. ..riv'j? Λ%..· . . l . ' i ! - . ' . *• '-. •ι. L i ' . . ·•• ίΐ:"·ι!'.%ν· ·λ.ι !.» ? "T •! •'-'' ' •t> '..'* " .. ''(· • : /./••-' -' ."• ι*ι • .ι ·;τ ' ' . ι . * . ί ο ; -Λ 1*517 r i- J*\ ι i