clr/1988/1988_3_425.pdf

(1988)Theapplicantsapplied andeventuallyobtained rural taxilicencesfor thevillageofAkrotiri,whilsttheinterestedpartiesappliedandultimately obtainedruraltaxilicencesfortheBritishSovereignBaseAreaofAkrotiri, thatisforaquitedistinctandseparateareafrom theformer. Moreover,theapplicantswerenotqualified toobtainanytaxilicences 5 for servingtheBritishBaseAreabecausetheydidnotoperatetaxi offices insuchareaanddidnotpossessapermittothateffect from theBaseAuthorities. Bymeansofthisrecoursetheapplicantsimpugnthevalidityofthedecision,wherebythereweregrantedtoeachoftheinterestedpartiespermits 10 forthreeruraltaxisforservingtheaforesaidarea. Held,dismissing therecourse:

(1)Theissueoflegitimateinterestmay beraisedbytheCourtexpropriomotu.

(2)Inthecircumstancesofthiscaseapplicantshadnolegitimateinterestadverselyanddirectlyaffected bythesub-judicedecision. 15 Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. Casesreferredto: MeletisandOthers v.C.P.A.

(1986)3C.L.R. 418; Kritiotis v.The MunicipalityofPaphosandOthers

(1986)3C.L.R.322; 20 Constantinidou andOthers v.TheRepublic

(1974)3 C.L.R.416; Republicv. K.M.C. MotorsLtd.

(1986)3C.L.R.

1. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of therespondent Minister given in hierarchical recourses filed by the interested parties whereby 25 426 3 C.L.R. Christou & Others v. Republic therefusal of theLicensing Authority toissue totheinterested partieslicencesforruraltaxisforthepurposeof servingtheAkrotiriSovereignBaseAreawasreversed. Chr.Pourgourides,fortheapplicants. 5 M.Tsiappa, fortherespondents. G. TriantqfyHides,forinterestedpartyY.Ellinas. A. Haviaras,forinterestedpartyKemTaxiLtd. Cur.adv. vult. LORISJ.read thefollowing judgment.Thethreeapplicants, 10 bymeans,ofthepresentrecourse,impugnthedecisionoftherespondent Minister, dated 7.1.85, given in the hierarchical recoursesfiled bytheinterested partiesagainstthedecision ofthe Licensing Authority, whereby therefusal of theLicensing Authority,toissuetotheinterestedpartieslicencesforruraltaxisfor 15 thepurposeofservingtheAkrotiriSovereignBaseArea,wasreversed. Thefactsrelevanttothepresentcaseareasfollows: On 14.4.80applicants No. 1 and No.2addressed twosepar•ateapplications(videAppendicesNo.4&No.3respectively)to 20 theLicensingAuthorityfortheissueofruraltaxilicences,forthe purposeof servingtheneedsofAkrotiriVillagebytheirrespectivevehiclesTZ628andEZ
2. On28.3.81applicant No.3likewise appliedtotheLicensing Authority(videAppendix 5)for theissueof arural taxilicence 25 for thepurposeof serving theneedsof Akrotiri Village,byhis vehicleK.A.
3. On5.5.80interestedpartyY.EllinasappliedtotheLicensing Authority (videAppendix No.2)for theissueof5ruraltaxili427 Loris J. Christou & Others v. Republic

(1988)cences for the purpose of serving the needs of the British Sovereign BaseAreaof Akrotiri. On 18.4.80 interested party KEM Taxi Ltd. applied totheLicensing Authority for the issue of 10rural taxi licences for the purposesof serving the needsoftheBritish Sovereign BaseArea 5 of Akrotiri. TheLicensing Authority, after examining therelevant applications, granted on 23.2.82 toapplicants 1and 3theapplied for licences, turning down the application of Applicant No. 2 in the present recourse. TheLicensingAuthorityrefused applicationsofbothinterested parties for the issueof rural taxilicences for thepurposeof serving theneedsof the S.B.A of Akrotiri.(Vide Appendix6). Applicant No. 2filed ahierarchical recourse with theRespondent Minister challenging the said refusal of the Licensing Au- 15 thority; theMinister after examining therecourseofapplicantNo. 2 annulled the relevant decision of the Licensing Authority on 10.7.82, and invited the Authority in question to grant to applicant No.2thelicence appliedfor i.e.alicence for aruraltaxi for the purpose of serving theneedsof Akrotiri Village (videAppen- 20 dix 7). Interested partiesinthepresentrecoursenamelyY.Ellinasand Kem Taxi Ltd. filed on 15.3.82and 18.3.82respectively hierarchicalrecourseswith therespondent Minister (videAppendices9 and 10),challengingthedecision-refusal of theLicensingAuthor- 25 ity dated 27.2.82. TheRespondent Minister after hearingthehierarchical recourses of both interested parties on 19.6.82 and 25.9.82 (vide Appendices 11and 12)decided on7.1.85toannul therelevantdecision of theLicensing Authority; by virtue of his aforesaid deci- 30 sion,which appearsin Appendix 13attached totheopposition the respondent Ministerinvited theLicensing Authority togranttem428 10 3 C.L.R. Christou &Others v. Republic Loris J. / / poraryrural taxi'licences for aperiod of6months inrelation to3 vehicles owned by each one of the interested parties, to be stationedintheBritish Sovereign BaseAreaof Akrotiri with aview toservingtheneedsof theS.B.A.ofAkrotiri;inhisaforesaid de5 cision of7.1.85 therespondent hassetoutas aprerequisite for a further renewalof thesaidtemporary licences after theintitialperiodof6months,theadduction ofevidencebytheinterested partiestotheeffect that they were still operating Taxi Offices in the Akrotiri S.B.A with thepermission of theBase Authorities. 10 Itisquiteclearfrom theabovestatementoffactsandthematerial before me, that all three applicants applied for the issue of rural taxilicences for thepurpose of serving theneeds of Akrotiri Village and they were eventually issued with such licences for the saidpurpose,whereasbothinterested partiesappliedfor theissue 15 tothemofrural taxi licencesfor thepurposeof serving theneeds of theBritish Sovereign BaseAreaof Akrotiri;inspite of the fact that the interested parties were refused such licences by the Licensing Authority, they were successful in their hierarchical recoursesandtherespondentMinisterinvited theLicensing Author20 ity to grant temporary licences to them - 3 for each interested party -for the purpose of serving the needs of the British SovereignBaseAreaof Akrotiri. In short the applicants applied and eventually obtained rural taxilicences for thevillageof Akrotiri,whilst theinterested par25 tiesappliedandultimatelyobtainedruraltaxilicencesfor theBritishSovereignBaseAreaofAkrotiri,thatisfor aquitedistinctand separateareafromtheformer. Inthisconnection itmust beborne inmindthattheapplicantsapartfromthefact thattheydidnotapplyfor licences for ruraltaxisfor thepurposeof servingtheBrit30 ish Sovereign Base Area of Akrotiri, they did never qualify for seeking suchlicencesastheywereneveroperating Taxi Officers in the Akrotiri S.B.A. nor did they possess any permit from the BaseAuthoritiestothat effect. Inthecircumstances Iconsider itpertinent at this stagetoex35 amine whether thepresent recourse isjusticiable in view of the provisions of Article 146.2 of our Constitution which requires 429 Loris J. Christou & Others v. Republic

(1988)suchrecoursetobemadebyapersonwhoseany"existinglegitimateinterest"isadverselyanddirectlyaffected bysuchdecision. "Thelegitimateinterestmustexistatthetimeofthefilingofthe recourse and up to the determination of thecase"(Meletis and Others v.C.PA.

(1986)3C.L.R.418atp.433). 5 InthisconnectionIfully endorsethestatementofmybrother JudgeStylianidesinKritiotisv.TheMunicipalityofPaphosand Others

(1986)3C.L.R.322atp.338: "Though traditionally a recourse for annulment of an administrative decision is very widely open, it is not an actio 10 popularisopentoeverycitizenofthecountry.Acitizencannot contestthevalidity ofeveryadministrativeactunlesshepossessesthequalityoflegitimateinterest.Haditbeenotherwise, theinflux of therecourseswould paralyseadministrativejusticeandthejudicialcontrolwouldhavebecomeillusory;fur- 15 thermpreforpracticalreasonstheadministration wouldalsobe handicappedinthedueperformance ofitsfunction. Thecriterion is theexistenceofadirectrelationship and affectation of aninterest, material ormoral,of theapplicant,otherwise the recourseisdeprivedofitsadmissibility". 20 v. Although theissueof "legitimate interest" in thecaseunder consideration wasnotdirectlyraised,itiswellsettledthattheexistenceoflegitimateinterestcan beinquiredintobyanAdministrativeCourtactingexpropriomotu. InConstantinidou &Others v.The Republic

(1974)3C.L.R. 25 416 at418 it was held that "Litigation under Article 146of the Constitution isamatterofpubliclawandthepresenceofanexisting legitimate interest has tobe inquired by an Administrative Courtevenexpropriomotu". And recently in Republicv. KM.C. MotorsLtd.

(1986)3 30 C.L.R.1899itwasreiteratedbytheFullBenchofthisCourtthat inadministrativerecoursestheCourtcangoexpropriomotuinto 430 3 C.L.R. Christou & Others v. Republic Loris J. certainmattersand,inparticular,matterstouchingtheexistence ofalegitimateinterest. Intheinstantcasehavingconsidered thematterinthelightof theaboveauthorities andthematerialbeforemeIholdtheview 5 thatallthreeapplicantshadnoexistinglegitimateinterestadverselyanddirectlyaffected bythesub-judicedecisionoftheRespondentMinisterdated7.1.85giveninthehierarchicalrecoursesin question. Allthreeapplicantsconfined theirapplicationstoobtainingli10 cencesofrural taxisfor thepurposeof serving Akrotirivillage only.Applicants 1and 3were granted such licences bytheLicensingAuthorityasearlyas23.2.82;applicantNo.2inspiteof therefusal oftheLicensingAuthoritywaseventuallygrantedthe licenceapplied for, byvirtueof thedecisionof theRespondent 15 Minister given in the hierarchical recourse as above stated on 10.7.82. Allpoplicantsinthepresentrecoursedidnotapplyandinfact theydidnotqualify, for thereasonsabovestated,toapplyforlicencesfor rural taxisfor thepurpose of serving the Sovereign 20 BaseAreaofAkrotiri. Bothinterested parties appliedfor licencesfor rural taxis for theexclusivepurposeofservingtheSovereignBaseAreaofAkrotiri.Bothinterestedpartieswerefully qualified insoapplying asitisclearthattheyhadsecuredcontractsfromS.B.A.ofAkro25 tiriforthepurposeofservingtheBaseAuthorities. ThehierarchicalrecoursetotheMinisterbyApplicantNo.2is notinanywayconnectedwiththe hierarchicalrecourseoftheinterestedparties.ThehierarchicalrecourseofapplicantNo.2was relatingtothevillage Akrotiri andthedecision bytheMinister 30 was given asearly as 10.7.82.The hierarchical recourse of the interestedpartieswasrelatingtotheirapplicationforobtainingrural taxi licencesfor theexclusive purpose of serving theSovereignBaseAreaofAkrotiri. 431 LorisJ. Christou & Others v.Republic

(1988)Thedecisionof therespondent Ministerinthelatteroccasion wasgiven on7.1.85.Itcould notanditdidnotinfact affect legitimateinterestsofanyoneofthethreeapplicants. Foralltheabovereasonsitisclearthatnoneoftheapplicants everhadanylegitimateinterestinthesenseofArticle146.2ofthe 5 Constitution, soasto beenabled topursue thepresent recourse which istherefore, doomedtofailure andit is accordinglydismissed. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 10 432