clr/1988/1988_3_1887.pdf

(1)(a)—Hawking—Bye-Law155

(1)of the Villages(Administration andimprovement) ΡedhoulasBye-Laws,1951inforce inAyiaNapa—Not ultraviresenablinglaw,i.e.section 21(n)and24

(1)(a)of Cap. 243, Constitutional Law—Rightto exercise a trade—Constitution, Art.25—Ambit of—The Villages (Administration andImprovement)Law,Cap. 243,sec­ tions21(n) and24

(1)(a)—Restrictionsimposedthereby—Necessary"in the public interest" andfor public health.' Reasoning of anadministrativeact—Reviewofprinciples applicable—Refusal of licencefor hawking—Inthecircumstances of this case thedecision was notdulyreasoned. Recourse for annulment—Remedies—Constitution, Art. 146.6—Claim for declaration thatrespondentshadnopower torefusethegrantofalicenceto hawk-—Nojurisdiction togrant sucharemedy. Thefactsofthiscaseappearsufficiently inthejudgmentof theCourt. , _ 1887 .V y Subjucide decisionannulled. Noorder astocosts. Zembashi v. Impr. Board Ay. Napa

(1988)Casesreferredto: Republicv. Cava

(1968)3C.L.R.322; Christodoulou v.TheRepublic, 1 R.S.C.C.1; SpyrouandOthers(No.2) v.Republic

(1973)3C.L.R.627; PapaxenophontosandOthersv.Republic

(1982)3C.L.R. 1037; Ethnikos v.K.O.A.

(1984)3C.L.R.1150; LefkatisandOthersv.Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R.1372; MouzourasandOthersv.TheImprovementBoardofAyiaNapa,

(1988)2 C.L.R.26; MunicipalCorporationoftheCityofTorontov. Virgo [1896]A.C.88; 10 DistrictOfficerNicosiav.loannides, 3R.S.C.C.107; Police v.Liveras, 3R.S.C.C. 65; Panayisv. ThePortsAuthorityofCyprus

(1988)3 C.L.R. 1095; GeorghiadesandOthersv.Republic

(1967)3C.L.R. 653; HjiSawav.Republic

(1972)3C.L.R.174; Republic v.Georghiades

(1972)3C.L.R.594; TsoulouftasandOthersv. TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R.426; Marangosv. TheRepublic

(1983)3CLJ*.682; Co-Operative]SocietyofAlonav. TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 222. 1888 ,- 3 C.L.R. Zembashi v.Impr.Board Ay. Napa . . .Recourse. Recourse against'th'e^decisionoftherespondentsrefusingthe grantofahawker licence totheapplicant within theareaofthe ImprovementBoardofAyia Napa. G. PittatziSy for theapplicant. , P.Angelides, for therespondents. , .. „ ,. . - .-.. .»«ο..-,.rW,;w.,;:... ,f v v w ^ o · ^ . ^v u / f J . STYtiANEDES J.readthefollowingjudgment'The applicant bVmisrecourse seeks: Γ ^ · ' ; Λ " t ; j Vv ° Λ ' ί ' / ' ' · : 10 ."(a)Declarationthatthedecision of-the Respondents com*'." municateii to'her'by letter dated'21st March, 1986, whereby theyrefused togranttotheapplicanthawker licencewithinthe v 'areaoftheImprovementBoardofAyiaNapaisvoidand/orΠlegaT" ,, ' : < Λ• i " ' " r j M " "r'r" *v,r 'J,"ij' (b)DeclarationthattheImprovementBoardofAyiaNapa hasnoright orpower torefuse togranthawker licencewithin theareaofAyiaNapatotheapplicant" Theapplicantis from Paralimrii.At ttfe material time"sHe.was theowner ofa motorcar,Registration No. RK'175; whichwas 2Q adaptedtobeusedtasamobilecanteen,which howeverwas.reg^isteredrin the nameofher'son: Byletterofher advocate, dated 13m'December,*1985, sheapplied'for ahawker'slicencefor the period 1st March, 1986,'to31st December' 1986, within the areasoftheImprovementBoards ofAyiaNapaandParalimni.This letterwas addressed totheDistrictOfficer ofFamagustainhisca­ 25 pacity asChairmanofthesaidtwoBoards. On 14thJanuary, 1986,therespondentImprovementBoardof Ayia Napa, considered theaforesaid application anddecided to examineitwithothersimilarapplicationsin March. 1889 Stylianides J. Zembashi v. Impr.Board Ay. Napa

(1988)On6th March,1986, themembers of theImprovementBoard met. At thatmeeting representatives of theMinistry of theInteri­ or,thePlanning Bureau,TheCyprus Tourism Organization,the PublicWorks Department,Town PlanningandHousing were in attendance.Therelevant partof therecordof themeetingreads: 5 "VII ΑΔΕΙΕΣ Διαβάσθηκε τηλεγράφηματουΣυνδέσμου Ξενοδόχων μετοοποίοεκφράζεταιη αντίθεσητουςσεπερίπτωσηχο­ ρηγήσεως από το Συμβούλιο αδειώνλειτουργίας κινητών περιπτέρων επίτης παραλίαςκαιαποφασίσθηκεναπλη- ίο ροφορηθεί ο ανωτέρωΣύνδεσμοςότι το Συμβούλιοδεν προτίθεται ναεκδώσειτέτοιες άδειες." The Chairman of the Improvement Board on 21st March, 1986, informed applicant's advocate thatthe application of his client dated 13th December, 1985,for thegrant toherhawker's 15 licence within theImprovementBoardof AyiaNapawas exam­ inedanddismissed. Hencethisrecourse. Counselfor theRespondentsobjected thattherecoursecannot beproceeded with, asthereliefprayed isoutsidetheambitofAr- 20 dele 146andbeyond thejurisdiction ofthis Court. Therevisionaljurisdiction isconferred onthisCourtbyArticle 146of theConstitution.Theobject of thereviewis adecision,act oromission of anyorgan, authority orperson,exercisingany ex­ ecutive oradministrative authority.Thepowerof theCourtis set 25 outinparagraph 4 as follows: "4. Uponsuch arecourse theCourtmay,by its decision (a)confirm, eitherinwholeorinpart,suchdecision oract oromission; or 1890 3 C.L.R. ... ;C Zembashi v. Impr. Board Ay. Napa χ '· ν Λ (-·.; Γ • . • 1 .ι '- Stylianides J. .^ //•./> «·. (b)declare,eitherinwhole orinpan,suchdecision oract ' to benullandvoid ahdOf ho' effect whatsoever; or l (c) declare thatsuch omission, either, in whole or inpart, oughtnot tohave beenmadeand-thatwhatever has been omit­ ted should havebeenperformed." 'l ' ' '"*" l0 The power'of the"Court.uncier (bj'is'"declare"/.-null arid void anS'of'noeffect whatsoever"'the 'decision impugned.I t is" riot open tothis Courttodecide togrant thesecondrelief prayedin this recourse. (See Republic (Public Service Commission)v. KikaGava-(\96%)3 C.L.R.322). force in Ayia NapaImprovement"Board, is"ultra"vireslhe'eriabling Law, Cap.243. rx

(2)Section 21 (n)andBye-LawJ 155

(1)are ^unconstitutional, ' ' l ' asmey'lnfrinrgeaAiticle!25 of the'Consti'tutibni '•' *'' V *• \/cJ UiijC ν \ *\ . ?'",' .'• ':τΓίΡΓ,Γ.·*ι. ιrui\v JP.^f... ^'J"< JO·-.

(3)the subjudice decision lacks dueoranyreasoning andit wasreachedwithoutdueinquiry. .*.-«? <•* ·,, "TrieSUDjudicedecision hWtb beannulied7an'd be^eclarednull and void andof noeffect whatsoever if it was based on invalid law'.Law'iridudes^subsidiary TegislaHonr,(See*A/i/iWe^CAri5/i?doulou and The Republic (Collectorof CustomsNicosia)', 1 R.S.C.C. 1;SavvasChr.Spyrou andOthers (No. 2).v. Republic (iMTnsingJAutl£hffi 3iSuR? 627;Yapaxenophonios andOthhrs'v.'-RepublicXmiyi Clt.RV 1037;£rAmA:d.f ,v'P ATM. aW^-'fcil'R.'.l l'si^n?£@£8Ώ W 1 rt ift, v WSr^?R^: :l3U :ϊ olt btii (wtey^'cL *. ί^2).'^i " s '-~;',-'• ' -: r- iViiiotwtVii' iUvunAin Juaq^A *or?y3-: :·.;υ γύ &ΐ. *'.«J>? <ins*) Thevsubmission of counsel is"thatBye-Law 155

(1)",which is^ subordinatelegislation, is ultraviresastoitsextentand contents. When a sub judice legislation is examined with aview to decide it/on a contentionthatitis'ultravires,"trie,answer to this'question 1891 StylianidesJ. Zembashi v.Impr.Board Ay.Napa

(1988)depends,in every case,on thetrueconstruction of therelevant enablingpowerconcerned. Section 21(n)of the Villages (Administration and Improvement)Law,Cap.243reads: "21. SubjecttotheprovisionsofthisLawandofanyother 5 Lawinforceforthetimebeing,theBoardshall,withinthelimitsoftheimprovementareaandinsofarasitsresourcespermit- in) provide for the establishment, regulation and use of marketsandprohibitorregulatethehawkingofanygoodsin 10 anyplaceotherthansuchmarkets;" Section24

(1)(a)provides: "24.

(1)ABoard may,from time totime,make bye-laws notinconsistentwiththeprovisionsofthisoranyotherLawin forceforthetimebeing,foralloranyofthefollowingpurpos- *' es,thatistosay: (a)toenableorassistaBoardtoperform anyoftheduties assigned toitbysection21or23andtoprovidefor thepaymentof any rates,fees, rents,tollsorcharges inconnection therewith;" It was submitted that section 21(n) empowers the Improvement Board only to regulate whereand how hawkers may sell their goodsbut not torequireorissuelicenceorimposeconditionsfor such licencesorprohibit hawking.ThismatterwasrecentlydeterminedbytheCourtofAppealinAntonisMouzouras ^5 andOthers v.TheimprovementBoardofAyia Napa,

(1988)2 CX.R. 26atp.32as follows: "We turn now to the second ground of appeal. It was argued thatparagraph (n)of section 21of theLaw shouldbe 1892 3 C.L.R. V·'" Zembashi v. Impr.Board Ay. Napa Stylianides J. ' · j-ι , . readas awhole,thatis thatanImprovementBoardcannotre­ gulatethehawkingof anygoods andsubject suchfunction to a licence,unless markets areestablished andinthecaseofAyia Napathishadnotbeen done. * ' 5 1Q . • - * Onatrueconstuctionof thesaidstatutory provision thees.tablishment,regulation anduseof markets isonefunction and theprohibition andregulationof hawkingof anygoods inany placeotherthansuch markets is another.Inourviewthees­ tablishmentof amarketisnotaconditionprecedenttothe regulationof hawking. Bye-law 155

(1)therefore which does not refer totheestablishment of a.market before hawkingbutonly totheestablishment of alicencefirst obtained andlaysdown by paragraph 2 thereof thefees to be paid, is intra,vires the Law." j5 Inthepresentcasecounsel for theapplicantrelyingonMunici­ pal CorporationoftheCity ofToronto v.Virgo [1896]A.C.88, submitted thattheenabling law doesnotconfer power onthe Im­ provement,Board to "prohibit" hawking within thelimits of its area.LordDavey saidthefollowing in theVirgo case (supra),at, 20' PP*,93. ^ ν . , ^ , τ .^h ,jr j . , ., : · r. , i ^ . . - . • *;:t 2 c. 3 0 "It appears to their Lordships that the real question is . whether under a power to pass.by-laws 'for regulating,and governing' hawkers, & c.,,thecouncil may prohibit hawkers ,.fromplyingtheirtradeatall inasubstantial andimportantpor• tionof thecity, no question of any apprehended nuisance.be-. ing raised; Itwas contendedthatthebye-law was ultravires,, • andalso,in restraintof tradeandunreasonable..The twoques-tions runvery much intoeach other,and in theview which theirLordships takeitis notnecessary toconsider thesecond question separately. Nodoubtthejegulatkm andgovernance of atrademayin-, volve theimposition of restrictions onits exercise both as;to timeandtoacertainextent as toplace where such restrictions areintheopinionof thepublic authoritynecessary topreventa % 1893 Stylianides J. Zembashi v.Impr. Board Ay. Napa

(1988)nuisance or for themaintenance of order. But their Lordships think there ismarked distinction tobedrawn between theprohibition orprevention of a tradeand theregulation or governanceof it,andindeed apowertoregulate and govern seemsto imply the continued existence of that'which is to beregulated 5 or governed. Anexamination of other sectionsof theAct confirms their Lordships'view,for it shews that when the Legislatureintended togivepowertopreventorprohibititdid soby express words. But through all these cases the general principle may be 10 traced, that amunicipal powerof regulation Orof making bylaws for good government, without express words of prohibition, does not authorize the making it unlawful to carry on a lawful tradeinalawful manner." In thepresent case thelawempowers with express words both the prohibition and the regulation of hawking. In view of the aforesaid thecontention that Bye-Law 155

(1)isultravires fails. 15 TheConstitution of theRepublicofCyprusinanumberof Articles guarantees to the individual certain social and economic rights, which are tobeexercised within the framework of public 20 interest andcommon welfare. Article 25 safeguards therighttopractice anyprofession orto carry out any occupation, trade or business subject to such formalities,conditions, orrestrictions asprovided for therein. What is guarded against areinfringements intheexerciseofthisrightas 25 such; butcontrols inrespect ofobjects which might be necessary for the exercise of such right are not excluded by this Article. (District Officer, Nicosia and Georghios loannides, 3 R.S.C.C. 107 at p. 109.) Article 25guardsonly against direct interference with the right 30 safeguarded thereunder - (Police and Georghios D. Liveras, 3 R.S.C.C. 65). 1894 3fC.L.R. " Zembashi v. Impr.Board Ay. Napa Stylianides J. > J - Theexercise of such right is not absolute and the State has power,for certainpurposes specifically setoutinparagraphΪ, to prohibitorregulate it ,. $ y '' The provisions of section 21(n) orCap.^243 andBye-Law 155

(1)are necessary 'in thepublic interest" andfor "thepublic health"."(Police andGeorghiosD:Liveras,3 R.S.C.C, 65;lDis: trictOfficer·',Nicosia andGeorghiosfodnnides, 3 R.S.GC.'107, at p. 109.) They are notrepugnant or inconsistent with Article 25. , 10 Reasoning:' 15 20 25 35 ' ' "" : U) ' Therequirementof duereasoning inadministrative decisions has been stressed repeatedly by this^Court.Therequirementof reasoningis that itspresenceexcludes arbitrariness onthepartof theadministrativeorganandprotectstheadministrationagainstitself by preventing itfromtaking a hasty^decisiori. At'the same time itprotectsthepersonsaffected by suchdecision.Thereason­ ingmustbeclear,that istosay,theconcretefactors onwhichthe administrationbased itsdecision for thecaseunderconsideration mustbespecifically mentionedinsuchmannerastorenderpossibleitsjudicial control.Itmustcontaintheway of thinkingofthe administrative organ on therelevant facts which constitutethe foundation for thedecision.A reasoning which does notsatisfy theseconditionscannotbeconsideredasduereasoning.The rea­ soning may besupplementedfromthematerialinthefileof the administration.(Soteris L.Panayis v.ThePortsAuthority ofCy­ prus,

(1988)3C.L.R. 1095;AthosG. Georghiades and Others v.Republic(Public Service Commission)

(1967)3C.L.R.653, 666; Georghios HjiSavva v. Republic (Councilof Ministers)

(1972)3 C.L.R. 174;Republic (Public Service Commission) v. Lefkos Georghiades

(1972)3C.L.R. 594; Andreas Tsouloftas andOthersv.TheRepublicof Cyprus

(1983)3C.L.R.426; Marangos v. TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R. 682 and Co-operative Societyof Alona v. TheRepublicof Cyprus

(1986)3 C.L.R. 222. See, also, Decisions of the Greek Council of State, 47Q/ 1970, Volume A\ p.686 andΠ,Δ.Δαγτόλοα)- GeneralAdmir f895 Stylianides J. Zembashi v.Impr.Board Ay. Napa

(1988)nistrative Law, a' 1977, pp. 166-167 andγ'/1 1981, pp. 285286.) Thesubjudice decision producedtotheCourtis not reasoned. Itdoesnotconvey thereasonswhy theRespondentsdecidednot tograntany licence tohawkers including theapplicant.Therea- 5 soning for thesubjudice decision canneitherbeascertainednor supplemented from the material in thefile of theRespondents producedbefore the Court. Thusthesubjudice decision was taken byexerciseof the Re­ spondents' descretion in a defective manner and in excess of power. Thesubjudice decision is boundtobeannulled. 10 In theresult thesubjudice decision is declared null andvoid andof noeffect whatsoever underArticle 146.4(b). Lettherebenoorderastocosts. ,. , Subjudicedecisionannulled. 15 Noorderas to costs. 1896