(1988)1988August31 [A.LOEOUP.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ELENIGEORGHIOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPERMITSREVIEWAUTHORITY, Respondent. (CaseNo.80/87). MotorTransport—TheMotor TransportRegulationLaw,9182, section5
(11)5 (d)—Revocationofaroaduselicence. MotorTransport—TheMotorTransportRegulationLaw9/82,section6
(1)—A licencereferstothevehicleandcanbetransferredwithitasprovidedby s.6(l)—Thetermsandconditionsofthelicencearecarriedwithit. Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Itmaybesupplementedbythematerialin thefile. Applicant'sruraltaxiwas,contrarytotheconditionsoftherelevantlicence,neitherstationednorcirculatingatPlatanistassavillage.Asaresult thePermitsAuthorityrevokedthelicence.ThePermitsReviewAuthority dismissedapplicant'shierarchicalrecourse.Hencethisrecourse. 10 15 Held,dismissing therecourse:
(1)Thereasoningofanadministrative actmaybesupplemented,asindeeditis,inthiscase,fromthematerialin thefile.
(2)Thepowertorevokethesaidlicenceisregulatedbypara,(d)ofsection5
(11).
(3)Aroad use licencerefers tothevehiclein respect of which it is 1712 20 3 C.L.R. 5 Georghiou v. Republic ,' grantedandcanbetransferred withthevehiclebyits.ownereitherduring hislifetimeoronaccountofdeathasprovidedbysection6
(1)oftheLaw and,therefore,thepurchaseofthevehiclebytheapplicantwithitslicence carriedwithitalsothetermsandconditionsofsuchlicenceandimposedon ji hertheobligationtocomplywiththem. ' r - *·•··*· Recoursedismissed. - ' Noorderastocosts. - Recourse. 10 15 Recourse against thedismissal of thehierarchical recourse of the applicant against thedecision of theLicensing Authority re voking applicant's road use licence of her rural taxi under Reg. No. TSN.
- ^ · 'w-}' • "• '' ' ' - *' : ' '' • * . t"r ' . ' - ' . ' . ι . ' ·. , ·.
- Karapaiakis, for theapplicant '~ ' ·' Μ.Tsiappa(Mrs,),for therespondent Cur. adv. vult. 20 25 30 . A. LOIZOUP. read the following judgment By the present recourse theapplicantseeksadeclarationof theCourtthattheact and/ordecision of therespondent Permits Review Authority by which theroad use licenceof therural taxi of theapplicantunder Registration No. TNS626 was revoked, andor'thatthe dismissal of thehierarchical recourse against thedecision of the Licensing Authority by which itrevoked theroaduse licenceof her said rural"taxi;is nullandvoid andwith nolegaleffect whatsoever.' '· - Theapplicantwas theregistered owner of theaforesaid vehicle which was.licensed as arural taxi tobe stationedat Platanistassa .village(Appendix "1").By tetter datedthe 17th September 1983 (Appendix "2"), theLicensing Authority was informed by theDepartmentof inlandTransport thatthesaid licensed rural taxi was neitherstationednorwas itcirculating atPlatanistassa village. -.; The applicantwas theninvited by theLicensing Authority by 1713 A.LoizouP. Georghiou v.Republic
(1988)letterdatedthe25thMay·1984(Appendix"3")toattendameeting oftheAuthorityfortheexaminationofthematterofcirculationof hersaidruraltaxi.Atthatmeetingwhichwasattendedbytheapplicant's husband, theLicensing Authority decided after taking intoaccounteverything saidonherbehalf,toinviteagaintheap- 5 plicanttoattendinpersonitsmeeting(Appendix"4")andaletter datedthe22ndJune 1984wassenttothateffect totheApplicant (Appendix"5"). Following this,the applicant sought byapplication datedthe 28thJune 1984(Appendix "6")thegrantofanurbantaxilicence 10 inrelationtohersaidvehicle. Attheirmeetingofthe 10thJuly 1984(Appendix "7"),theLicensing Authority after hearing theApplicant and her husband andtakingintoaccountallrelevantmaterial,theywarnedherasto the necessity of keeping her taxi stationed at Platanistassa for 15 servingthevillage.Theyfurther warnedherthattheywouldtake all necessary steps against her if she failed todo sowithin 15 days. After thelapseofthesaidperiodtheLicensingAuthorityde. cidedattheirmeetingofthe 10thJuly, 1984(Appendix "8"),in 20 thelightofinformation thattherelevanttaxiwasstillnotstationed andcirculatingatPlatanistassavillage,andafter takingintoaccountallrelevantfacts,circumstancesandmaterial,torevokethe taxi'slicence.The saiddecisionoftheLicensingAuthoritywas communicatedtotheapplicantbyletterdatedthe8thAugust 1984 25 (Appendix "9").Theapplicantlodgedagainstthisdecision(Appendix "10")anhierarchicalrecoursetotheRespondentAuthority. Theapplicant'shierarchicalrecoursewasheardbytherespondentAuthorityattheirmeetingofthe11thOctober1986(Appendix "11")in which theapplicant, herCounsel and herhusband -werepresent TheRespondentAuthoritythendecidedaftertaking intoaccountallrelevantfacts,circumstancesandmaterial,toconfirm theLicensingAuthority'sdecision.TTieirdecision (Appendix"12")readsasfollows: 1714 35 3 C.L.R. Georghiouv. Republic A.Loizou P. * .,"ThePermitsReviewAuthority having inmindthe legisla" tioninforce andall thereal facts of thecase thathavebeen placedbefore itandhaving studiedallthefactors from theΓβίβτ vantfiles andeverything thathasbeensaid onbehalf of theap plicant, hasdecidedtodismiss herrecourseasithasbeen per suaded thattheapplicantuses hervehicle underRegistration No.NS626contrary toLaw". *•*•.., Samewas communicatedtotheapplicantby lettersdated thei MthDecember 1986,and the20thDecember 1986 (Appendices. "13" and"14") and.against ittheApplicant-filed thepresentRecourse.onthe 9thFebruary 1987. •• / , · • · , ·' Itisthecasefor theapplicantthatthesubjudicedecision lacks duereasoningcontrarytothegeneralprinciplesof administrative law thatrequirethat decisions takenbycollective organsadversetothecitizensshouldbeduly andsufficiently reasoned. , ι , , ' •« * . • . ' . • Withoutdisagreeing withtheprinciple„Ifind thatonthefacts. of thecasesamehasnotbeenviolated bytherespondentauthority inthepresentcase. Thesubjudicedecisioncontainsall necessary elements andis.duly supplemented,as.a decision of thisnature canbe,by,thematerial inthefile. Inthatrespect onecannotig-, norethatthe respondentauthorityhadbefore it therelevantfile withallevidence andotherinformationthatestablished toitssat isfaction thefact thattheapplicantinviolation of theLaw andthe conditionimposedontheroaduselicenceofthesaidvehiclewere breached. ' '' *! - ' ' J' • • : • ' . , J* ..· •. • • •V -. Thesubjudicedecision was reachedintheexercise of thesta tutorypowersgiventotherespondentauthorityby si4(A)of the: MotorTransportRegulation Laws 1982*i 1984 (Laws No.9of 1982'and 84of 1984,hereinafter tobereferred toastheLaws.)' Therevocationof thesaidlicencewas madeonthe strengthof theprovisions of s..5
(11).of the.Laws which provides that the roaduse licencemayberevoked by theLicensing Authority,foro anyoneoffoereasons,setputtherein.Paragraph (d)'thereofpro-1715 j A.LoizouP. Georghiou v.Republic
(1988)videsthatwheneveritsholderomitstocarryouttheroadusefor whichit,was granted for aperiodof twomonths unlesshehad secured theapproval of theLicensing Authorityfor suchomission. NeedlesstosaythatthelicensingAuthorityhadgrantedthe 5 roaduselicencetothesaidvehicleundertheprovisionsofs. 5
(3)and9of thelaws.Indoingsoithadtakenintoconsiderationthe extentoftheneedsof theruralcommunityintendedtobeserved thereby.Theverydefinition ofaruraltaxicontainedins.9
(1)of theLawandbywhichitisprovidedthattheruraltaximusthave 10 its seat andarea orparking stationoutside anurban traffic area showsthepurposefor whichsuchlicencesaregranted. Thecomplaint of theapplicant that therespondent authority actedcontrary toLawinasmuchasitfailed tocomply withthe provisoofsubsection 11 oftheLawswhichprovidesthataroad 15 uselicenceshall berevoked forthegroundsreferred toinparagraphs(b)and(c)of subsection 11oftheLawonlywhensuch licencehadpreviouslybeensuspendedbyvirtueoftheprovisions of sub section 12of theLaw,cannot stand astherevocationin' thepresentcasewasmadeonthebasisofpara,(d)ofsubsection 20 11 ofsection5oftheLawtowhichIhavealreadyreferred. Itmayalsobepointedoutthattheroaduselicenceofthevehicleinquestionwasgrantedfor theserviceofthetransportneeds of thevillageofPlatanistassa andonthevery licencetherewas recordedits seat andparking station:Alsotheobligation of the -vehiclecreatedbypara. 15oftheTransportRegulation,Regulations1964- 1986that "Outsidethehoursduringwhichit offers servicesitwillremainduringthewhole24hour-periodinitsvillageforthepurposeofrenderingservicesatanymomentandbe parkedatitsseat",wasinsertedaspartoftheconditionsofitsli- 30 cence. Moreoveraroaduselicencereferstothevehicleinrespectof whichitisgranted andcanbetransferred withthevehiclebyits ownereitherduringhislifetimeoronaccountofdeathasprovi* dedbysection6
(1)oftheLawand,therefore,thepurchaseofthe 35 1716 3 C.L.R. Georghiou v. Republic A. LoizouP. vehicle by the applicant with its licence carried with it also the terms andconditionsof such licenceandimposed onhertheobli gation tocomply with them: '*' *' ' '; 5 10 15 The contentiontherefore of the applicant that she was under theimpression thatthevehicle could alsobeused as anurbantaxi cannot stand there being noneed undertheLaw for"her to have applied herself for theoriginalroaduselicenceof thevehicle. The facts of the case were clearly and unequivocally estab lished and it was an undisputed'fact thatthe vehicle in question was used by theapplicantinviolation of theconditionsofitsroad uselicence andtherelevant provisions of theLaw towhich refer encehas beenmade.' J" ' ' J~" Therefore thesub-judice decision was validly takenby the re spondent authority and for all the above reasons therecourse is dismissed. The subjudice decision is confirmed, but in thecir cumstancestherewill benoorderas tocosts. '- ι i κ-. ' Ί. w; • ? t ,*·. , . .κ .,·... 1717 ,,Recourse,dismissed. ,Noorder as to costs.