clr/1988/1988_3_2683.pdf

(1988)themthattheconnectionfeesshouldbepaidtotheBoardafterthecompletionoftheproject Hencethisrecourse. Held,annullingthesubjudicedecision:

(1)Theexpressioninthenew bye-law 113"upto£100,—perbedindicatesdiscretion".Intheexerciseof ^ suchdiscretionanduntilthesubjudicedecisionwastakentherespondents fixed thefeeat£50.—perbed.

(2)ItisageneralprincipleofadministrativeLawthatabuseofpower consistsofanactordecisionwhichstartswithalawful decisionoftheadministrationbutwhichwasgivenforanevidentlyextraneouspurposeother 10 thantheonefor whichthelawwasenacted.Thisofcoursehappenswhen theactcomplainedofistheresultoftheexerciseofdiscretion.Needlessto say,however,thattheinquiryintothisgroundpresupposesaninquiryinto theinsidemotivesfortheactclaimedtohavebeentakeninabuseofpower, andthattheburdenofproofwhensuchgroundisinvokedisalwaysonthe 15 applicantallegingsame.

(3)Inthiscasetheapplicantsdischargedtheburden.Indeed,whenthe respondentsoriginallydemandedandcollected the£100perbed,theydid notexerciseanydiscretion,buttheyobeyedtheMinisterofInterior.Hence therevocationofsuchdecision.Theythenchangedtheirdecisiontocollect ^0 £50anddecidedthatasfrom 16.9.85thefeewouldbe£100.Then,they changedtheirpracticetocollectthefeebeforeexaminationoftheapplication forthebuildingpermit Inthatwaythelawandadminstrativepracticegoverningtheissueoftheconnectingfeeswouldnotbetheoneinforceatthe time ofthemakingoftheapplicationwhichwasthematerial tirr- _faras 25 thepresent applicants areconcerned but thenewpracticeand increased fees. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Recourse. 30 Recourse against the decision of the respondents to claim from applicants the amount of £100.= per bed as water supply fees in respect of the erection of a hotel. G. Triantafytlides, for the applicants. P. Angelides, for the respondents. « Cur. adv. vult. 2684 3 C.L.R. Stergides v.Impr.Board Ay. Napa A.LOIZOUP. readthe following judgment. Theapplicantsin thisrecourseprayfor thefollowing relief: 5 10 "(a)A declarationof theCourt thattheactand/ordecision of the respondents to claim from the applicants the amountof£100perbedaswatersupply feesi.e.atotal £10,000 is null andvoid and of nolegal effect what­ soever. (b)Adeclarationof theCourtthattheactarid/ordecisionof therespondentsdated the7thJuly, 1986,tocollectthe amountof £10,000 i.e. £100 per bed as water supply fees isnullandvoid andof nolegal effect whatsoever." .The facts, sofar asrelevant,areas follows: 15 20 25 «Q In 1979 the applicants applied for a building permit for the erectionof ahotelatAyiaNapa.At thetimeof thesubmission of theapplication thequestion of thewater supply fees was gover­ nedbytheAyiaNapaVillages(AdministrationandImprovement) Bye-Laws 1975.Moreoverthefees fixed by theBoardwereten poundsperbed andit was thepracticeof therespondentBoard thatbefore any further examinationof anapplication for abuil­ dingpermitwould be done, anapplicanthadtosecure apermit for thewater supply andthatheshould pay theprescribed fees sothathisplanswouldbeentitledtobesubmittedfor approval by theCyprus TourismOrganisation. Itwas thenonly after the approval by theCyprusTourismOrganisation that thebuildingper­ mitappliedfor,would be issued.Byvirtueof Bye-Law 113of theVillages (Administrationand Improvement)(Amendment) Bye-Laws 1984,published inSup­ plementNo. 3 totheOfficial Gazette of theRepublic datedthe 17thFebruary, 1984 theamountpayable aswaterfees inrespect of tourist establishments was fixed "upto£100perbed" (μέχρι £100κατάκλίνη).Onthe3rdMay, 1985,therespondentBoard requiredfromtheapplicantsthepaymentof £100perbedi.e. a totalof £10,000; andtheapplicantspaid thesaid amount under 2685 A.Loizou P. Stergides v.Impr.Board Ay.Napa

(1988)protest aspertheir letterof 8thMay 1985(Exhibit 1),andchallenged therelevantdecision by meansof Recourse No.653/85 whichisstillpending.a The subjudice decision was taken at themeeting of therespondentsof the 16thSeptember 1985,anditisdeemedexpedi- 5 ent toquote in full therelevant extract from the minutesof the saidmeeting.Theyreadasfollows: Therewasdiscussedinextensothequestionofpaymentof watersupplyfees for theconnectionof touristestablishments 10 withtheVillageWaterSupply.InaccordancewiththeprovisionsofRegulation 113(a)andafter areferencetotherelevant decision of the Board which wastaken on the 11thJanuary, 1985,thefollowingwereascertainedordecided. (a)Notwithstanding thedecisionoftheBoardthatinrespectof 15 the instances referred tothere would becollected fees of £50perbed,inaccordancewiththeinstructionsofexMinisterofInteriorMr.Chr.Veniamin,therearecollectedfees of£100perbed. (b)Asfrom the 16thSeptember 1985, thereshouldbecollect- 20 edfees of £100per bed intheinstances of connection of touristestablishmentswiththevillagewatersupply.Messrs G.Constantinou andA.Andreoudisagreed withtheabove decision. (c)Theabove fees tobepaid totheBoard together with the 25 feesfor theissueofthebuildingpermitthatistosayupon thecompletionoftheexaminationoftherelevantapplication. (d) Mr. Michalakis Stergides and Emmanouella Enterprises (theapplicants)whosoughtrecoursetotheSupremeCourt 30 2686 3 C.L.R. 5 ltt ,r 30 35 Stergides v.Impr. Board Ay.Napa A.LoizouP. becausetheypaidconnectionfeesof£100perbedinsteadof£50andAlasiaLandDevelopmentCo.,which" sentachequethroughtheiradvocateforthepaymentof connectionfeesof£50perbed,shouldberefunded the amountspaidbythemandtobeinformed aboutthe relevantdecisionoftheboard,thatistosaythattheconnectionfeesshouldbepaidtotheBoardafter thecompletionoftheexaminationoftherelevantapplications for the issue of thebuilding permit together with the buildingpermitfees." Indeed,byletteroftheadvocateoftherespondentBoarddated the 18th November 1985,(Exhibit D),the amount of £10,000 wasrefundedtotheapplicantsandtheapplicantswere,also,informed thattherelevantfees "aretobepaidonthedateoftheissuebytheBoardofthebuildingpermitwhentheexactnumberof bedswillbeknown".Theapplicants'advocatesinreply informed theadvocateoftherespondentBoard,byletterdatedthe4thJanuary, 1986(ExhibitE),Thatthecontentsofhisaboveletterwere unacceptableandthattheywouldchallengethedecisionisquestionbyarecourse.Infacttheyfiled RecourseNo.38/86whichis alsopendingawaitingtogetherwithRecourseNo.653/85theresult ofthis recourse. ItwouldappearthatsometimeatthebeginningofJuly1986, theapplicantscametoknowthatthebuildingpermitcouldbeissuedprovided thattheypaidthewatersupplyfeesasclaimedby the respondent Board. So the applicants paid the amount of £10,000 under protest and with full reservation of theirrights (seethelettersoftheiradvocatesdatedthe3rdJuly 1986,and7th July, 1986,Exhibits "F"and "G"respectively; and on 1stSeptember1986theyfiled thisrecourse. ' Thesaidiiye-Law 113(a)whichgovernsthefeesinquestion, leaves the amount of fees to the discretion of the respondent Board.Thisisclearfromitswordingwhichprovides"upto£100 perbed".Anditis settled lawthat thereisdiscretionary power whontherulesestablishing thecompetencedonotdetermineex2687 A. Loizou P. Stergides v. Impr.Board Ay. Napa

(1988)actly theactof theadministrativeorgan butleavefreedomof ac­ tion toit.Theamountof thefees, being amatterwithin thedis­ cretionarypowers oftherespondentBoard, hadtobefixed bythe respondentBoard byexercising suchpowers asithadbeendone inthepresentcaseandwere untilthesubjudicedecision was tak- 5 en£50perbed. Before proceeding any further reference may bemadetothe minutesof therespondentBoardof the 11thJanuary 1985,which reads: "1. Therewas discussed atlengththequestionof theamendment 10 of Bye-Law 113 which governs thecollection of fees for connection from thevillage water supply. In spite of this promptingby theChairmantoadoptthesuggestions ofthe Ministry of Interioras its general letter underNo. 259/83, anddated 14thJune 1984,itwas decidedby thelocalmem- γ$ bers nottohavethesesuggestions of theMinistryof Interior adoptedfor thefollowingreasons: (

1. a)There are no divided building-sites in the area of Ayia Napa. (b)Thereis nofirst quality water supply for consumption. 20 (c)Theimpositionof increasedfees of connectionforproper­ ties which areoutside theareaof thewater supply isnot consideredasafair treatmentof the consumers. (d)By theadoption of thesuggestions of theMinistryofInter­ ior therewill be further impetus for development of the 25 water supply of theareawhichisnotdesirable." Themainissuefor determinationinthiscaseis whetherthere has been abuse orexcessof power intheconduct of the respon­ dentBoardwhen taking thesubjudice decisionof the 16thSep­ tember 1985.ForthatpurposeanadministrativeCourthastoturn 30 tothefacts andothercircumstancesof thecase. 2688 3 C.L.R. 5 in ^ 30 35 Stergides v.Impr. Board Ay.Napa A.LoizouP. Itisacknowledged inparagraph (a)ofthesubjudicedecision of the 16th September 1985hereinabove set out that "notwithstandingthedecisionoftheBoardthatinrespectoftheinstances' referred to there would becollected fees of fifteen poundsper bed,yetinaccordancewiththeinstructionsoftheex-Ministerof Interiortherearecollectedfeesofone-hundredpoundsperbed." Thisestablishesthefact thattherehadnotbeenexercised bythe Boarditsdiscretion tofix thefees above fifty pounds,sowhen theyweredemanding from theapplicantsinthefirst instanceto P a v ^100perbedtheywereactingnotasaresultoftheexercise of theirdiscretionary powersgiven by therelevant Bye-Lawto therespondent Board as acollective organ taking,at aregular meetingwithproperminuteskept,suchdecision,butonmereinstructions,fromtheMinister whocould nothavehimself taken undertheLawortheBye-Lawssuchadecision.Hencetherevocation of theirpreviousdecision andtherefund ofthethenpaid feestotheapplicants. Furthermoreinparagraph(b)thereoftheydecidethat"as from the 16thSeptember 1985,thereshouldbecollected feesofonehundredpoundsperbed" which showsthat they sodecided for thefirsttimetoincreasethefeestothemaximumauthorisedby theBye-Lawsoastobeentitledlegallytocollectthatamountas from thatdate.Thenunderparagraph(c)of thedecisionitisdecidedthat"thesaidfeesshouldbepaidtotheBoardtogetherwith thefees for theissueof thebuildingpermit, thatistosayupon thecompletionoftheexaminationoftherelevantapplications."It isobviousthatbythispartoftheirdecision theychangedtheuntil thenestablishedpracticeofcollectingthefeespriortotheexaminationoftheapplicationbytheCyprusTourismOrganisationand asaprerequisitetoit.Theychangedtheirpracticesothatthecase of the two applicants as setout in thefollowing paragraph (
2. d)thereof shouldbecovered.Under'thislatterparagraphadecision istaken thattheamountspaidunderprotestbytheapplicant for one-hundred poundsandbyanotherfirm withwhichwearenot concerned inthisrecourse whoclaimed thatthefees atthemoment of theirpayment werefifty poundsper bed,would berefunded andthattheyshouldbeinformed abouttherelevantdeci2689 A.Loizou P. Stergidesv.Impr.Board Ay.Napa

(1988)sionoftheBoard,thatistosaythattheconnectionfeesshouldbe paidtotheBoardafter thecompletionoftheexamination ofthe relevant applicationsfortheissueofthebuildingpermitstogether withthebuildingpermitfees. ItisobviousthatthoughinLawtheycouldhavetakenthisde- 5 cisionintheexerciseoftheirdiscretionunderBye-Law 113same wastakeninabuseofpower,in sofarastheapplicantsareconcernedandtheothersinlikeposition,thatistosaytoserveanextraneouspurpose, namely thecollection of thefees ofonehundredpoundsperbedfromtheapplicant andfromtheother firm JQ affected by their decision and not be bound to receive fifty poundsasitwastheirdecisionuntilthenandtheirpracticeatthe timethefees werecollected.Inthatwaythelawandadministrative practicegoverningtheissueoftheconnectingfeeswouldnot betheonein force at the timeof themaking of theapplication ,which wasthematerialtimeasfar asthepresent applicantsare concernedbutthenewpracticeandincreasedfees.Hencealsothe revocationoftheirprevious,contrarytoLaw,decisiontocollecta hundredpoundfeeperbed. Thisleadstotheannulmentofthesubjudicedecisionasitisa 20 generalprincipleofadministrativeLawthatabuseofpowerconsistsofanactordecision which startswith alawful decisionof theadministration butwhichwasgivenforanevidentlyextraneous purpose other than theonefor which thelawwasenacted. Thisofcoursehappenswhentheactcompainedofistheresultof theexerciseofdiscretion.Needlesstosay,however,thattheinquiryintothisgroundpresupposesaninquiryintotheinsidemotives for the act claimed tohave been taken in abuse ofpower, andthattheburdenofproof whensuchgroundisinvokedisalways on the applicant alleging same. This burden has,in the presentcase,beensuccessfuly discharged bytheapplicants from 30 thematerialbefore me,namelythewholeconductofthe respondentBoardwhichclearlyestablishesabuseofpower.(SeeConclusionsoftheGreekCouncilofState1929-1959p.269etseq.) Foralltheabovereasonsthesubjudicedecisionis annulled 35 2690 3 C.L.R. Stergides v.Impr. Board Ay.Napa A. Loizou P.. and therecourse succeeds. In thecircumstances, however, there willbenoorderastocosts. Subjudice decisionannulled. Noorderasto costs. 2691