3 C.L.R. 1988December22 [A.LOEOU, P.,DEMETRIADES, PAPADOPOULOS, HADJITSANGARIS, CHRYSOSTOMIS,NIKTTAS,ARTEMIDES,JJ.] GEORGHIOSCHRISTOUANDOTHERS, Appellants-Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEMINISTRYOFCOMMUNICATIONSANDWORKS, 2.LICENSINGAUTHORITY, Respondents. (RevisionalJurisdictio. AppealNo. 797). Legitimateinterest—Theissuemayberaisedbythecourtexpropriomotu— Whether Court boundtohear theparties before determining such issue raisedas(foresaid—Questiondeterminedinthenegative. Theappellants,whoaretheholdersofruraltaxilicencesforservingthe needsofAkrotirivillage,attackedbymeansof arecoursethedecisionto grant rural raxi licences to the interested parties for serving the British SovereignAreaofAlcrotiri. ThetrialJudgeraisedexproprio motutheissueofapplicants(appellants)legitimateinterestand,withouthearingtheparties,heldthattheapplicantsdidnotpossesssuchaninterestastheirlicencesconcerned anarea distinctfromtheoneservedbytheinterestedpartiesinvirtueofthesubjudicelicences. Hencethisappeal.Counselforappellantargued thattheCourtshould havegiventhepartiesopportunityofsubmittingtheirviewsonthequestion . oflegitimateinterest Held,dismissingtheappeal:
(1)Theissueoflegitimateinterestmaybe inquired intobythisCourtexpropriomotu.An AdministrativeCourtis hotboundtohearthepartiesbeforedecidingsuchissuewhenallrelevant 2563 Christou &Others v. Republic
(1988)facts arebefore it.ThisCourtisnotpreparedtodepartfromsuchapproach.
(2)ThetrialJudgewascorrectinarrivingattheconclusionhedid.The twosetsoflicencesconcernedtwodistinctareas. Appealdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 5 Casesreferredto: Constantinouv. TheRepublic
(1966)3 CLJR.174; Lambrakisv. TheRepublic
(1970)3CLJ*.72; ConstantinouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1974)3CL.R.416; Republic v.K.M.C. MotorsLtd.
(1986)3CL.R. 1899. 1Q Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment of aJudgeof theSupreme Court of Cyprus (Loris, J) given on the 4th March, 1988 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 413/85)* whereby appellant's recourse against the reversal by the Minister of Comminications and 15 Works of the decision of the Licensing Authority refusing to granttointerestedpartieslicencesforrural taxiswasdismissed. Chr.Powgourides, for appellants -applicants. M. Tsiappa (Mrs.), for the respondents. A. Haviaras, for interned partyKEMTAXILTD. 20 Noappearance for interestedpartyY.Ellinas. Cur. adv. vidt. 0 (Reportedin
(1988)3CLJt.425). 2**4 3 C.L.R. Christou&Othersv.Republic A. LOIZOU,P:Thejudgment of theCourtwill be delivered byMr.Justice Chrysostomis. 5 10 15 20 25 CHRYSOSTOMISJ:Thisisanappealagainst thejudgmentof a Judge of this Courtwho dismissed therecourse of theapplicants,thepresentappellants,onthegroundthattheyhadnoex isting legitimate interestinthesenseof Article 146.2of the Con stitution. Inthatrecoursetheapplicantsprayedforadeclaration, thatthe decision of respondents 1,dated7.1.85, togrant toeachoneof the interested parties, namely, Yiannakis P. Ellinas andKEM TAXI Ltd, aroadservice licencefor theoperationof threetaxisto bestationed atAkrotiri Sovereign Base Area, was null andvoid andof nolegal effect. Ourtaskhasbeenmadeeasy as,inthejudgment underappeal, all elements,factual andlegal, are set out.Thefacts in sofar as relevant asstatedthereinareasfollows: '. "On 14.4.80 applicants No. 1 and No.2,addressed two separateapplications(videAppendices No.4&No.3respec tively)totheLicensing Authority for theissueofruraltaxiLi. cences,for thepurposeof servingtheneedsof Akrotiri Village bytheirrespective vehicles JZ628andEZ419. On28.3.81 applicant No. 3likewiseapplied tothe Licen singAuthority (videAppendix 5)forthe,issueof aruraltaxili cencefor thepurposeof servingtheneedsof Akrotiri Village, by hisvehicle KA909. ', Ί On5.5.80interestedparty Y. Ellinas applied tothe Licen- singAuthority (vide Appendix.No:2)for theissueof 5rural taxilicencesfor thepurposeof servingthe needsof theBritish Sovereign BaseArea ofAkrotiri. < -··... 30 - O n 18.4.-80 interested-party KEMTaxi Ltd applied tothe Licensing Authority for theissueof 10rural taxrlicences for 2565 .r. f ChrysostomisJ. Christou &Others v.Republic
(1988)thepurposeof servingtheneedsoftheBritishSovereignBase AreaofAkrotiri. TheLicensingAuthority,afterexaminingtherelevantapplications,granted on 23.2.82 toapplicants 1and3theapplied for licences,turningdowntheapplication of Applicant No.2 5 inthepresent recourse. TheLicensingAuthorityrefusedapplicationsofbothinterestedpartiesfor theissueofruraltaxilicencesforthepurpose of servingtheneedsof theS.B.A.of Akrotiri.(VideAppendix6). Applicant No.2filed ahierarchical recourse with theRespondentMinisterchallengingthesaidrefusaloftheLicensing Authority;theMinisterafter examiningtherecourseofapplicantNo.2annulledtherelevantdecisionoftheLicensingAuthority on 10.7.82, and invited the Authority in question to 15 granttoapplicant No.2thelicenceappliedfor, i.e.alicence foraruraltaxiforthepurposeofservingtheneedsofAkrotiri Village(videAppendix7). InterestedpartiesinthepresentrecoursenamelyY.Ellinas andKEMTaxiLtd,filedon 15.3.83and 18.3.82 respectively 20 hierarchical recoursewiththerespondent Minister (videAppendices 9 and 10),challenging thedecision -refusal of the LicensingAuthoritydated27.2.82. Therespondent Minister after hearing thehierarchicalrecourses of both interested parties on 19.6.82 and 25.9.82 25 (videAppendices 11and 12)decided on7.1.85toannulthe relevantdecision of theLicensingAuthority;byvirtueofhis aforesaid decision,whichappearsinAppendix 13attachedto theopposition therespondent Minister invitedtheLicensing Authoritytogranttemporaryruraltaxilicencesforaperiodof 30 6monthsinrelationto3vehiclesownedbyeachoneoftheinterestedparties,tobestationedintheBritish SovereignBase Area of Akrotiri with a view to serving the needs of the 2566 10 3C.L.R. 5 Christou &Others v.Republic Chrysostomis J. S.B.A.of Akrotiri;in hisaforesaid decisionof7.1.85therespondenthassetoutasaprerequisiteforafurther renewalof thesaidtemporarylicencesaftertheinitialperiodof6months, theadductionofevidencebytheinterestedpartiestotheeffect that they were still operating Taxi Offices in the Akrotiri SlB.A.withthepermissionoftheBases'Authorities." Fromtheabovestatementoffactsandthematerial beforehim, thelearnedtrialjudgeproceededandconsideredexpropriomotu theissueastowhethertheappellantshadanexisting legitimate 20 , interestin thesenseof Article 146.2of theConstitution,asthe roadservicelicencesthatwereeventuallygrantedtothem,concernedthevillageofAkrotiri,whereas,theroadservicelicences that were granted to the interested parties concerned Akrotiri SovereignBaseArea;whichforallintendsandpurposesisadisjc tinctandseparateareafromtheformer;aridheconcludedthatthe subjudicedecisionoftherespondentMinistercouldnotanditdid not,infact,-affect anexistinglegitimateinterestofanyoneofthe threeappellants,andhedismissedtheir recourse.' 20 25 30 Grounds one ana*two of.the present appeal are alternative groundsandaretotheeffect thatthetrialJudgeerredinexaminingtheissue whether theappellants hadlegitimateinterest,ex proprio motu, without first inviting theparties toexpress their viewson'thematter. Thethirdground of appealistotheeffect thatthetrialcourt erredinarrivingattheconclusionthattheappellantshadnoexistinglegitimateinterestinthesenseofArticle 146.2oftheConstitution. Learnedcounselfortheappellantsadvancedhisargumentbefore usand insupport thereof thereferred ustoStassinopoulos. LawofAdministrativeDisputes,4thed.,p.251,whereitisstatedthatasaruletheadministrativecourtsmayemploytheinquisitorialsysteminexercisingtheirrevisionaljurisdiction,andonthis. hebasedtheargumentthat,inthecircumstances,thelearnedtrial judgehadadutytoinvitethetwosidestoaddresshimontheis2567 ChrysostomisJ. Christou & Othersv.Republic
(1988)sue of legitimate interest, before taking his decision. Furthermore,Mr.Pourgouridesarguedthatoncetheexistenceoflegitimateinterestwasnotchallenged,theappellantdidnothavetoestablish same affirmatively. In support of this proposition he referred ustothecaseofConstantinouv.TheRepublic
(1966)3 5 C.L.R.174,atp. 180,whereitwassaidthat:"Itisnotnecessary for theapplicanttoestablish affirmatively thathehasthenecessary legitimate interest entitling himto make arecourse.Such proofneedbeadducedonlyiftheexistenceofhislegitimateinterestischallenged. (VideTsatsosontheRecourseforAnnulment, 1 0 2nd ed.p.35)" FinallyMr.Pourgouridessubmittedthatthelegitimateinterest of theappellants,apartfrom otherconsiderations,couldalsobe gathered from the fact that thenumberofroad servicelicences were increased in the area, and thus their work would be de- ,* creased.Inthisrespect,hereferred ustoStassinopoulosLawof AdministrativeDisputes,pp.202,203. Learnedcounselfor theRespondentsreferredtotheaforementionedfactsandstatedinteralia,thattheappellantsweregranted theroadservicelicencestheyappliedfor,andthatthoselicences 20 concernedAkrotiriVillageonly.Theinterestedpartiesontheother hand, eventually obtained road service licences for Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area,which isadistinct areaandthus shesupportedthestand,thattheappellantshavenolegitimateinterestas theywerenotinanywayaffected, andthatthetrialJudge rightly decidedthispoint Learned counsel for the interested party KEM TAXI LTD adoptedwhateverlearnedcounselfortherespondentshadstated. Healsoaddedthattheroadservicelicences,whichweregranted totheappellantsweresubject totheconditionthattheirtaxishad toremaininthevillageofAkrotirithroughoutthedayfor Jiepurpose of servingthepublic.Hefurther submittedthat,inthecircumstances these licences should nof be taken ascovering the wholeoftheSovereignBaseAreaofAkrotiri.Healsomentioned thatthelicencesoftheappellantsweregrantedonthe27thFebm- 35 2568 3 CX.R. Christou &Others v.Republic Chrysostomis J. ary, 1982,whereasthoseoftheinterestedpartiesin 1985and aftertheirhierarchicalrecourses,succeeded. Asregardsthefirst ground,thereisalineof authorityofthis Courttotheeffect thatlitigationunderArticle146oftheConstitu5 tionisamatterofpubliclawandthepresenceofanexistinglegitimateinteresthastobeinquiredintobyanadministrativeCourt evenexpropriomotu.(SeeLambrakisv.TheRepublic
(1970)3 C.L.R.72,atpp.73,74;Constantinou and Othersv. TheRepublic
(1974)3C.L.R.416,atp.418;Republic v.K.M.C. MotorsLtd
(1986)3C.L.R. 1899,at pp. 1903, 1904).Weareof l" theview that an Administrative Court isnot bound tohearthe partiesbeforedecidingsuchissuewhenallrelevantfacts arebeforeit,andwearenotpreparedtodepartfrom suchapproach.In thepresentcasethetrialCourtwasperfectly inaposition tode15 cidethisissuefromthematerial before itanditdid nothaveto hearevidencefor thatpurpose,assuggested bylearnedcounsel fortheappellants. Onthetotalityofthefactsofthepresentcaseandthematerial placedbeforethelearnedtrialJudge,wehavecometotheconclu20 sionthathewascorrectinarrivingattheconclusion thathedid, namelythattheapplicantsbeforehim,thepresentappellants,had noexistinglegitimateinterest asregardsthelicencesthatwere granted to theinterested parties.Thetwo setsof licencesconcernedtwodistinctareasandinthecaseoftheappellantstheirli-. 25 cencesweresubjecttotheconditionthattheirtaxishadtobestationed atAkrotirivillagefor thewholeofthedayanditis from thatvillagethattheywereallowedtocollecttheirpassengers.On theotherhand,theinterestedpartieswerelicensedtocollecttheir passengersfromtheBaseofAkrotiriitself,wheretheykepttaxi 30 .offices andtheyalsohadapermitfor thatpurposefromtheappropriate British Authorities, pursuant to a contract for such transportation. Intheresult,thejudgmentofthelearnedtrialjudgeis,inthe circumstances,upheld. 35 Foralltheabovereasonsthepresentappealisdismissedbutin thecircumstances,therewillbenoorderastocosts. Appealdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 2569 /