(1988)1988August8 [DEMETRIADES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION CHRISTODOULOSG.GIORGALLIDES, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEIMPROVEMENTBOARDOFYERMASOYIA, Respondent. (CaseNo. 152/84). Executoryact—Informativeoradvisoryact—Opinionexpressedbyanadministrativeorganinresponse toarequestbyapplicant—itisnotofanexecutorynature. Thepresentrecoursewasdismissedonthegroundthatitwasnotdirectedagainstanexecutoryact,butonlyagainstanadvisoryact. 5 Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: HadjiPanayiv.MunicipalCommitteeofNicosia
(1974)3C.L.R.366; Floridesv.TheRepublic
(1979)3C.L.R.37; Yiangou v.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 27. 1608 10 3 C.L.R. Giorgallides v.Republic Recourse.. , ^ Recourseagainstthedecision of therespondent,wherebyapplicantwasinformed thatRegulation64oftheStreetsandBuildingsRegulationscouldnotbeappliedinhiscase. 5 E.Theodoulou,fortheapplicant, G.Cacoyannis, fortherespondent . ;./ Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J.readthefollowingjudgment. ByhisrecoursetheapplicantchallengesthedecisionoftheActingDistrict 10 Officer ofLimassol,datedthe 16thJanuary, 1984,by,whichhe was informed that Regulation 64of the Streets and Buildings Regulationscouldnotbeappliedinhiscase. . The applicant whois theowner of aplot of land situated at Yermassoyia, intheDistrictof Limassol,addressed, oh the3rd 15 April, 1981,throughhisadvocate,alettertotheDistrict Officer ofLimassol,bywhichherequestedhisopinionastowhetherhis clientcouldproceedwiththedevelopmentofhissaidpropertyin view of thefact thattheproperty's only access toapublicroad wasaregisteredrightofwayofawidthofonlyninefeet.Tothis 20 lettertheapplicant'sadvocateappendeddraftplansoftheintendeddevelopmentofhisclient'sproperty. 25 Byletter/dated the24thAugust, 1981,,theDistrictOfficer informedtheapplicant'sadvocatethattherightofwayreferred,toin thetitleof thepropertycouldnotbeconsidered asa satisfactory accessforaconstructiondevelopmentofthesizeintendedbythe applicant4 . - -" ,-,,. r On the 15th September, 1981,applicant's counsel addressed anotherlettertotheDistrictOfficer, drawinghisattentiontoRegulation^, undertheprovisions-of which theDistrict Officer is 30 ,giventherighttodispensewiththerequirementsofanyRegula1609 DemetriadesJ. Giorgallides v.Republic
(1988)tionifhedeemsitfitinthecircumstancesofanyparticularcase, andrequestedthattheDistrictOfficer exercisedhispowerunder thatRegulationinfavouroftheapplicant. TheDistrictOfficer, after obtainingtheopinionoftherespondent's legal adviser and the views of the Department of Town 5 Planning and Housing, replied by letterdated the 27th March, 1982,that hecouldnotapplyRegulation64inviewoftheprovisionsofRegulation15B. Anumberofletterswereafter thatexchangedbetweentheapplicant'sadvocateandtheDistrictOfficer onthesubjectofwhe- 10 thertheDistrictOfficer shouldexercisehisdiscretionunderRegulation64infavouroftheapplicant TheDistrictOfficer, however,maintainedhisstandonthematter. The applicant then filed thepresentrecourse which wasopposed by therespondents on thegrounds,amongst others, that 15 the subjudice decision is not anexecutory one and that therecourseinanyeventwasfiledoutofthetimelimitprovidedbyArticle 146of the Constitution. Theirobjections were heard asa preliminarypointinviewofthefactthattheymightdisposeofthe case. 20 On thepreliminary point raised counsel for the respondents argued thatthesubjudicedecision wasof anadvisoryorinformatorycharacterandthatitwasnot,therefore,executory.Hefurther argued that thedecision of therespondents,which ischallenged bythisrecourse,isoutoftimeinthatitisconfirmatory of 25 apreviousone. Counsel for the applicant inreply argued that the subjudice decisionisanexecutoryoneastheinterestsoftheapplicantwere affected throughthewrongexerciseofthediscretionof theDistrictOfficer. Havingconsideredthecontentsofthefileoftheadministration andthewordingbothofthelettersaddressedtotheadministration 1610 30 3C.L.R. 5 Giorgallidesv.Republic DemetriadesJ. bycounselfortheapplicant,aswellasthelettersaddressedtoapplicant'scounsel,IhavecometotheconclusionthatwhattheapplicantsoughtbyhisletterswhichheaddressedtotheDistrict Officer was his views,or the intention of the administration regardingthedevelopmentofhisproperty. . IthasrepeatedlybeenheldbytheSupremeCourtthatopinions expressed byanadministrative bodytoarequest submitted toit onaparticularmatterdonotamounttoexecutoryactsbutthatany opinionexpressedonsuchmatterisonlyofaninformatory orad10 visorynature.InthisrespectseeHadjiPanayiv.MunicipalCommitteeofNicosia,
(1974)3C.L.R.366;Florides v.TheRepublic,
(1979)3 C.L.R. 37; Yiangouv. The Republic,
(1987)3 C.L.R. 27. - Inthelightoftheabove,Ifindthatthealleged'subjudicedeci15 siondOesnotamounttoanexecutoryone"butisofaninformatory and/oranadvisory natureandthatitmerelyexpressedtheintention oftheadministration asregardsthefuture submissionbythe applicant of anapplication for abuilding permit.in.the manner proposed by him.That theDistrict Officer wasexpressing his 20 ownviewsisalsoinmymindstrengthened bythefactthathedid notsignthe^sub"judiceletterinhiscapacityasChairmanof,therespondentBoard,noristhereinthefileoftheadministration adecisionof,theBoarddismissingtheapplicant'sapplication.. J 25 InthelightoftheaboveIfindthattheapplicant'srecoursewas prematurelyfiled andmustbedismissedwithcosts.*' Inviewsof myabovefinding,Iconsider that itisnotnecessary for metodeal with theissueof whether therecourse v/as filedoutofthetimeenvisagedbyArticle146oftheConstitution. . . . . i t · . , ,·· I ·.* •• " ' .·· :\' · ·' Recoursedismissed withcostsajgainst theapplicant Coststo 3C "beassessedbytheRegistrar. .*, ·, . " tr Recoursedismissed. withcostsagainstapplicant. 1611