(1988)1988February12 [LORIS, J.] ΓΝTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION NICOSGEORGHIOU KASSOS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEDISTRICTOFFICERNICOSIA, Respondent. (CaseNo. 172/85). Wells—The Wells Law, Cap. 351,asamended, section 3—Permit tosink a well—Discretionshouldbeexercisedinawaydesignatedtoprotectwater supply—Waterconservationarea—Consenttotheissuingofthepermit of theDirectoroftheWaterDevelopmentDepartmentnecessary—Evenifitis notnecessary,there isnothingwrongtoseekandobtainit. Reasoningofanadministrative act—Itmaybesupplementedfromthematerial inthe file. Theapplicantsankawellwithinawaterconservationareawithoutper mit TheDistrictOfficer, however,decided, withtheapprovaloftheDirec torofWaterDevelopmentDepartmenttogranttheapplicantacoveringper mit. Thisrecourseis directed againsttheconditionsattachedtothepermit, namelythat(a)Thequantityofwatertobepumpedshallnotexceed 10cu bicmetersinevery24hours,and(b)therewillbenodeepeningorwiden ingofthewellinquestion. Held,dismissing therecourse:
(1)Section 3of theWells Law,Cap. 351,asamended,empowerstheDistrictOfficer toimposeconditionsand 248 3 C.L.R. Kassos v. Republic restrictions ingranting apermit Asthewell lies withinawater conservation area,theconsentoftheDirectoroftheWater Development wasnecessaryforissuing thepermit.Evenassuming thatitwas notnecessary,there wasnothing wrongtoseekandobtain hisconsent. 5
(2)Applicant failed tosubstantiatehiscomplaints for discrimination.
(3)The respondent acted fortheprotection ofthe water supply in the area,amatterofpublicinterestofthegreatestimportance.Thediscretionary poweroftheadministration must beexercised insuch awayastoprotect water supply.
(4)Thereasoningemergesfrom theadministrativefile. 10 Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Yiannaki v.Republic
(1965)3C.L.R.561; 15 HadjiSavva v.Republic
(1972)3C.L.R. 174. Recourse. Recourse against the imposition of conditions in granting to applicant a coveming permit for the sinking of a well in his field at Nikitari village. 20 G. Yiangou, for the applicant. N. Charalambous, spondent. Senior Counsel of Republic, for the re- Cur. adv. vult. 25 LORIS J. read the following judgment. The applicant by means of the present recourse, challenges that part of the decision of the respondent District Officer, whereby conditions were imposed by the respondent in granting to the applicant a coveming 249 LorisJ. Kassosv.Republic
(1988)permit dated 28.11.1984, for the sinking of the well in his field under Registration No.3542 atNikitari Village,Nicosia District, covered byplot 17of Sheet/Plan XXVIII/
- Theuncontested factsofthiscasearebriefly as follows: The applicant wasatallmaterial times theowner (byvirtue of 5 Registration No. 3542) of a field situated at Nikitari village,NicosiaDistrict,covered byplot 17of Sheet/Plan XXVIII/
- The applicant applied to the respondent District Officer on 9.9.82 (vide blue 2 in theAdministrative file marked "X" before me) seeking a permit for the sinking of a well in his aforesaid 10 property,which iswithin theareadefined byvirtueof s.4
(1)of Cap.351 asa water conservation area. Theaforesaid applicant wasturned down bytherespondenton 22.3.83(vide blue 5in file marked 'X').The applicant proceeded some time in June 1983 to sink a well in his aforesaid property 15 without apermit; asaresult criminal proceedings were instituted bytherespondent against him byvirtue of Nicosia Criminal Case No. 12941/83 (blue 12). On 4.7.83 a recourse was filed by the applicant (Case No. 284/83) challenging the said refusal of therespondent togrant a permit to him for the sinking of the well in question (vide blue 15); the said recourse was withdrawn on 18.2.
- ._ On 25.2.84 the applicant applied to the respondent for reexamination of this case and the granting of a relevant permit (videblue27). On 14.5.84 the applicant was convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid criminal case No. 12041/83;thereafter the respondent havingre-examined thecaseof theapplicant decided on 28.11.84 with the approval of the Director of Water Development Departmenttogrant totheapplicant acovering permit for thesinkingof ™ thewellin question,imposing at thesame time twoconditions as follows: 250 25 3 C.L.R. Kassos v.Republic Loris J.
- The quantity of water tobepumped shall notexceed 10cubicmetersinevery 24hours. 5 2.There willbenodeepening orwideningofthewellinquestion (thedimensions)of which arenow 1.70 metersdepth and the diametre 2.55meters). Thecomplaints of theapplicant aredirected against theaforesaid two conditions imposed by the respondent in granting the aforesaid covering permiton 28.11.84 10 15 20 25 3Q Ihaveexamined thecomplaints of theapplicant inthelightof thewritten addresses and thematerial before me; inparticular I have gone through the administrative file, which isExhibit "X" before me,andIhavecometotheconclusion thatthereisnomerit in the prersent recourse. The allegations of the applicant are contradicted by the material in the Administrative file which strengthen theview that theconditions imposed, in granting the sub-judice covering permit, by the respondent District Officer, werereasonably open tohim. Inthefirstplacetherespondent District Officer, whoistheappropriate authority inthis casepursuant totheprovisions of s.3 of theWellsLaw, Cap.351 asamended isempowered toimpose conditions and restrictions in granting apermit under theprovisionsof s. 3
(1)of the Law. Furthermore itiscommon ground thatthewellinquestion was sunk in an area which is, and was at all material times, a water conservation area, for the purposes of section 4
(1)of Cap.351; thisclearly transpires from theadministrativefilesEx."X",andit isalsoadmitted bytheapplicant himself inrecourse No.284/83; thus,for theissuing of apermit for thesinkingorconstruction of a wellorfor thevariation or modification of any condition orrestriction imposedinany suchpermittheconcurrenceoftheDirectorofWaterDevelopment Department wasessential. Anditisclear intheinstant casethat theRespondent District 251 Loris J. Kassosv.Republic
(1988)Officer after carrying out due inquiry, hasobtained the concurrenceof theDirector of theWaterDevelopment Department,before granting the covering permit in question and imposing the conditionstherein stated. Evenassuming "thattheconcurrenceoftheDirectorofWater Development was not required under section 4
(1), Iamof theview that thecourseadopted bytheDistrictOfficer, in seeking such aconcurrence,hasnotresulted intheexerciseofhiseventual discretion in such a manner as to lead tothe annulment of his sub-judice decision. 5 1, In any case, there is nothing wrong intaking into account the views of the Director of Water Development in case where his concurrence is not necessary." (Vide Paraskevi Yiannaki v. The Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 561at p.569). 15 Amongst the complaints of the applicant is discrimination; I wasunabletotrace anything whatever pointing tothat direction; on thecontrary it isevident from thematerial before me,that the respondent thoroughly inquired into the allegations of the appli- 20 cantandtreated theapplicantinthe samewayastheownerof the adjacent plotunder survey reference XXVIII/56plot7;inthecircumstances the respondent acted as the applicant himself has asked him toact,in hisletterof25.2.84 (vide Blue27). Itisapparent from the material before methat therespondent 25 District Officer in imposing theconditions aforesaid, in granting the covering permit in question, acted for the protection of the water supply inthearea,amatter ofpublicinterestof thegreatest importance. As stated byTriantafyllides J,ashethen was,in the case of Yiannaki v. The Republic (supra) atp. 571 of the report 30 "The protection of water supplies in any area, whetherprivate or public, constitutes, in my opinion, a matter of public interest of 252 3 C.L.R. Kassosv.Republic LorisJ. the greatestimportance, becausewater, in whatever manner itis brought to the surface, is a commodity vital to the life of the country." 5 10 15 In thisconnection Iaminclined toagreewith learnedcounsel appearing for therespondent to the effect that the discretionary poweroftheadministration mustbeexercised insuch awayasto protect watersupply, which isasalready stated, amatterofpublicinterestofthegreatestimportance. With regard tothecomplaint as toreasoning,it iswell settled thatthereasoningbehind anadministrativedecision may befound eitherinthedecision itself orintheofficial recordsrelated thereto HadjiSavva v. The Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 174, 205. In the instant case the imposition of conditions finds support from the materialcontainedintheadministrativefile. For the reasons I have endeavoured to explain above, the present recoursefails andisaccordingly dismissed; inthecircumstancesIshallnot make anyorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. 253