(1988)1988August31 [A.LOIZOU,P.[ INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION GLAVKOSD. HADJIMTTSIS, Applicant, v. THEIMPROVEMENTBOARDOFYEROSKIPOU, Respondents. (CaseNo. 875/85). Competency—Lackof—Groundforannulment. StreetsandBuildings—Buildingpermit—The Streets andBuildingsRegulationLaw,Cap.96,section3
(2)(b)—PowervestedintheBoardofanImprovementBoard—its Chairman (TheDistrict Officer), assuch,has no competencyinthematter—in theabsenceofprovisionsrelatingtodelega- 5 lion, thepowercouldnotbedelegatedtosuchchairman. Delegation—Ofadministrativestatutorypowers—Intheabsenceofprovision allowingit,itisnotpermissible. Thefactsofthiscaseappearsufficiently intheJudgmentoftheCourt. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 10 Recourse. Recourse against therefusal of therespondents torenew applicant's building permit No. 0875 dated 7th June, 1985. K. Talarides, for the applicant. 1706 J5 3 C.L.R. . Hsdjimitsis v. Impr.Board Yeroskipou -v, K.Chrysostomides withA.Taliadoros, for therespondents. ' r · ' Cur. adv. vuli. A. LOIZOUP.read the'following judgment. By thepresentrecoursetheapplicantseeksthefollowingreliefs: •· · 5 10 (a)Adeclarationof theCourtthattherefusal of therespondent' Boardtorenew hisbuilding permitNo.0875,datedthe7thJune,( 1985,isnullandvoid andwithnolegaleffect, and, '" 4 ' (b)Adeclarationof theCourtthattheomission'of therespon dentBoardtorenew thesaidbuildingpermitisnullandvoidand withnolegaleffect, andthatwhat was omittedoughttobedone. I.took over the hearing of this recourse,on the 19thMarch 1988, inview of theimpending retirementof thethenlearned Presidentof thisCourtΗ.H.Triantafyllides, whountilthen was handlingsame. 15 Thefacts arebriefly these:Theapplicanthadsecured onthe 7th June 1984, thebuilding permit inquestion which provided for "Extension of aregistered house, (shopwith amezzaninearid covered spaceonthegroundfloorandoneflat of onebed-room, inaccordancewiththeapprovedplansandstaticcalculations)". 20 According to the plans submitted by the applicant and ap proved by therespondentBoardastheappropriateAuthority for theareainquestion,undertheStreetsandBuildings Regulation - Law,-Cap.96,theapplicant could extend theexisting approved buildingpreserving thewallsof theoldbuilding sothattheexten25 sionof thesaidbuilding wouldbeinaccordancewiththebuilding r^rmitissued/By thepreservation of thewallsof theold building therewould nothavebeentakenpartof me.'property.of theappli; cantandbecededtothepublicroad'andthatwas according tothe r : respondent Board thereason why theapplicant wanted topre ' 30 servethesaidwalls. u.' •; . . i- r . . • .. • " ' . ' . . : · - . ; . . 1707; - - .' . \ . •' - • ·' ' -.- ? - A. Loizou P. Hadjimitsis v.Impr. Board Yeroskipou
(1988)Duringtheperiodbetweenthe 15thNovember 1984and14th December 1984,asubstantialpartofthesaidwallsestimatedby therespondentBoardtobe52%ofthewholewallthatwastobe preservedorasacceptedbythearchitectoftheapplicant50%of it, was demolished, contrary to the permit and the approved 5 plans.Thiswasdoneinsuchamanner,itwasclaimedbytherespondent Board, that there was necessary the submission of a newapplicationonbehalfoftheapplicantfortheissueofanew buildingpermit Afterthedemolitionofthesaidwall,therespondentBoardby 10 letterdatedthe 14thDecember 1984,askedtheapplicantandhis buildingcontractortostopallbuildingworksastheywereconstructing abuildingcontrarytotheconditionsof thepermit.On the 15thDecember 1984,aCriminalcaseunderNo.7738/84was filed againsttheapplicantandhiscontractorintheDistrictCourt 15 ofPaphos. The applicant by letter dated the 19th December 1984,addressed totherespondentBoard,informed themthatthedemolitionofthewallwasmadewithouttheirknowledgebyathirdperson engaged by the contractor of the applicant and attached 20 theretoastatement ofthesaidperson thathehaddemolished it bymistakeandthathewasundertakingtorebuildsame. Therespondent Board byletterdatedthe5thFebruary 1985, informed theapplicantthattheappropriateAuthoritydecided: (a)Todismisstheapplicationforrebuildingofthedemolished 25 wall,and, (b)There-examination of thewholematterafter thesubmission of anewapplication for securing abuilding permitfor the specific building works which he intended to carry out in his plot. Onoraboutthe2ndJune 1985,theapplicantstartedtheconstruction ofthebuildingonthesaidplotoflandbydiggingpits 1708 30 3 C.L.R. Hadjimitsis v. Impr.Board Yeroskipou A. Loizou P. . andfilling themwith concreteandplacing pillars as aresult of which Criminalcase No.2685/85was filed against himandhis contractorcharging them(a)with theconstructionof a building withoutapermitand(b)with theconstructionof abuUding,-cbn5 trary totheconditionsof thebuilding permit. (Thiscase is still pendingintheDistrictCourtof Paphos); >;>•-.. > 10 -The applicantby letterdatedthe4thJune,1984,asked the re newal of his building permit.Onthe 12th August 1985,the fol ; lowingletterwas addressed todie-applicant by the Chairmanof therespondentBoard signed obviously'by theDistrictInspector onhisbehalf: ..:..<...>;* . ' '.·t "Irefer to-your letter dated4thJune, 1985, bywhich you ask renewal of your«building permitunderNo. 875,-dated7th -'June; 1984^andIinform you thefollowing: · • - • · . . ' . •>/ j . ,; • . ».· · - -"' , ι '.: >>·. !••* 15 ....' • ?* · 'τ ·"u 2:As ithas already beenmentionedintwoprevious letters withthe samenumberas aforesaid anddated 14thDecember 1984, and 5thFebruary 1985;respectively, after thedernoli,; tionof the basic wallsof the building which was not provided by theapproved plans, thesignificance of theissued permit 20 j'whichprovided for extension of the existingbuilding stopped existing andconsequently thereis noquestion of renewal of •*-youroldpermit,butof theissueof anewone aridsotherehas .'started:the-study by the various Advisory"Departmentsin-" ^ evolved, togiveyoutheappropriate"advice asregards the plans: 25 ' which mustbe submitted togetherwith anew application forT theissueof anewpermit." -: .· · , · ; ι < *nv *\+ oJ '* • . ·..:• .• • ••'- ... ' • • •" : «It-is thecasefor the applicantthatthe subjudicedecision was takenby antorganhaving nocompetenceinthematter, namelythe DistrictOfficer, andnotby theImprovementBoard'ofYeroslri30 pouwhich, inaccordancewithSection3
(2)(b)of the Streetsand Buildings RegulationLaw, Cap. 96,is theappropriate Authority - for thepurposes of the saidLaw:Therelevantfacts whichappear inthefileExhibit "X", andarerelatedextensivelyintheaddress* • of learned counsel for theapplicant may be summed up as fol1709 A.Loizou P. Hadjimitsis v.Impr. Board Yeroskipou
(1988)lows: AtthemeetingoftherespondentBoardofthe2ndMay, 1985, thestudyofthewholequestionofthebuildingpermitof theapplicant, waspostponed untiltheLandsandSurveysDepartment madeavaluationofthepropertyoftheapplicantforthepurposes 5 ofcompulsory acquisition.After thesubmissionbytheapplicant ofhisapplication ofthe4thJune 1985(blue40Exhibit"X"),for renewal of his building permit, the District Officer asked the views of theDepartment of Town PlanningandHousing(Note 19,inExhibit"X")forconsiderationatthe"future meetingofthe 10 Council which was to take place on the 24th June 1985".The viewsofthesaiddepartmentweregivenasperminute,Note20, inExhibit"X", dated24thJune, 1985,buttherespondentBoard didnotmeetonthatdate.FromNote 21,itappearsthattheDistrict Officer, gave instructions to bring up thecase atthe next 15 meetingoftherespondent Boardforadecision tobetaken,providedthevaluationoftheDistrictLandsOffice wasbythenavailable. The said valuation, however, as it appearsfromK.43,it wassenttotheDistrictOfficer onthe9thSeptemberandthenext meetingoftheBoardtookplaceonthe7thOctober. 20 AccordingtotheminutesoftherespondentBoardofthatmeeting(Blue44Exhibit "X"),"theletteroftheDistrictLands Officer (K.43),wasplaced before thelocalmembersandinaccordance withitthemarketvalueofthepropertyofMr.Hadjimitsis under plot No.261/1sheet/plan 51/12villageof Yeroskipou,amounts 25 tothesumof£5,580.-Forpurposesofpublicinterest,thatisthe wideningofthepublicroadforthecreationofaparkingspaceit wasdecided unanimouslythattheapplicant beinformed thathis application forrenewaloftheissuedbuildingpermitwasrefused andthatatthesametimetherewastakenaunanimousdecisionto 30 movetheprocedurefor compulsoryacquisition of the aforesaid plot." Thesaidentryoftheminutesisheaded,Application ofGlafkosDiofantou Hadjimitsi (B)635/83and 133/273.Thisisindeed theapplicationoftheapplicantdated4thJune,1985. 1710 35 - 3 C.L.R. Hadjimitsis v. Impr.Board Yeroskipou A. LoizouP. I have notbeen able totracewhether thesaiddecision was communicatedtothe applicantbutitisclearfrom thecontentsof the written address of his counsel filed on the21st June 1986, thatsamecametothe applicant'sknowledge,atleast,throughhis counselperusing thefilesof the respondentBoardandpreparing the said address sometimeprior to itsfiling on the 21st June 1986. Itis alsoclearthartherecoursewasfiled onthe 10th Octo ber 1985,and challenges,asalready seen,intheprayerforrelief, the'letter of theChairmanof theBoard,dated7th June, 1985, whichwas nottheresultof any meetingof therespondentBoard, at which itconsideredtheapplicant's applicationof the 4th June 1985,alreadyreferred toabove. Itwasthereforeadecisiontaken by anorgan'having'ho competencVinthe matteras the compe tenceundertheStreets andBuildings RegulationLaw, Cap. 96, section3
(2)(b), was vestedinthe Boardassuchandcouldnotbe transferred toitsChairmanoncetheredidnotexistexpresslegis lativeauthorisationfor suchcourse. Lackofcompetenceconstitutesagroundof annulmentofthe challengedact.The recoursetherefore succeedsasregards prayer (
- a)of thereliefs soughton this.groundand*Ineednot examinethe remaining grounds. The sub judice decision of the 7thJune, Λι '^SS.chaUengedismerefOTe'anhuUed. Γ1-" 'Λ' Asregardsrelief(b),namelytfor adeclarationoftheCourtthat the omission of the respondentBoardtorenew thesaid building permitof the applicantis null and Voidandwith nolegal effect, and thatwhat was omittedought to be done,same cannotbe .granted(as any omission, if therewas one, was remediedbythe decision^of:the respondent Board of the7th October 19,85,re ferred toearlierin thisrecourse, whereby the applicationforsuch renewal wasrefused indeed,evenbefore thefilingof thepresent recourse. ;In,theresulttherecoursesucceedsasregardsrelief (
- a)butfails asregards relief (b). Inthecircumstancestherewillbeno order as tocosts. -,.<,.-··•;, · · -. \..:-V i. . . . . ..- •. . Subjudicedecisionpartlyan nulled.Noorderastocosts. -1711