(1988)1988 March 11 [PIKIS,J] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ALEXANDRA CHR CHARALAMBIDES, Applicant, v THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS, THROUGH 1 THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR, 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER LIMASSOL, Respondents (CaseNo 181/87) Streets and Buildings—Building lying outside Water Supply Area— Applicationfor its extension—TheStreets andBuildings Regulation Law, Cap 96 as amended—Whether section 9
(4)thereof (introduced by Law 80/82)applicable—In the lightof thedefinition of "building'insection 2 andtheneedfor apermitfor everystructure orbuilding coveredby thepro- 5 visionsofsection 3
(1)(e),thequestionisdeterminedintheaffirmative Streets and Buildings—Building—Permit for—Does notprejudge thefate of anapplicationfor apermit concerningitsextension The facts of thiscase appear sufficiently in thejudgment of the Court Recoursedismissed 10 No orderastocosts Recourse. Recourseagainst thedecision toreject applicant'sapplication forapermittomakeextensionstoanexistingpig-stynearthevillagesofEriniandKolossi. '442 15 3 C.L.R. Charalambides v. Republic Chr.Powgourides, for theapplicant. CI. Theodoulou (Mrs.), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. 5 PIKISJ.read thefollowingjudgment. In 1976theapplicantor her predecessor in title built apig-sty in an area not far from the villagesof Erimi and Kolossi. In 1983sheapplied for apermit to makeextensionstothefarm, designed toimprove itscapacity and facilities. Her application was turned down. A rejection she 10 challenged by raising Application 487/85 forjudicial review of the disputed administrative action. In the course of the proceedings the recourse was discontinued and dismissed (in 1986) on the undertaking of the appropriate Authority to.reexamineherapplication supplemented byanyadditional facts that 15 might besubmitted tothe Administration. Athorough re-examination of theapplication followed, ascan begathered from thematerialinthefile of thecase.Theviewsof various departments of government were solicited jmew and fresh consideration was given to the merits and demerits of the 20 application. Once more it was decided toreject the application. The reasons were indicated in a letter addressed to the respondents on 2.1.87.The basic reasons iforrefusal of the application were_ (a)Absenceof valid reasons for departing from theprovisions 25 of s. 9
(4)(
- a)of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law (
- as)amended by s. 2 of Law 80/82) and Regulations or Directives issued thereunder (see A.R.A. 155/83, published on 8.7.83 under 18/73 atp.453). (b)Proximity toanewlycreated major road artery,theLimas30 sol -Erimi by-pass,andhabitationsof thevillagesofKolossi and Erimi. Section 9
(4)(a) of the lawprohibits thelicensing of buildings outside the water supply area (the property of the applicant lies 443 Pikis J. Charalambides v. Republic
(1988)outside such area),unlessjustified intheinterestof unification or improvement of existinghabitationsorthecompletion oftheroad network in the area, orthe appropriate touristic or other unified development. Regulations madepursuanttoexpress authorisation conferred bythe aforementioned law,explain andclarify thekind 5 of unification and development necessary to justify departure from theframework ofthelaw. The applicant questioned once more thevalidity ofthe administrative action and sought itsjudicial review by thepresent proceedings.Thedecision ischallenged as defective for misconcep- 10 tion of the law, particularly the applicability of s.9
(4)(a), misconception of thefacts, especially those bearingon thecompatibility of the extension with the natural and architectural surroundings and,for discriminatory treatmentderivingfromtheunequal treatment accorded to the applicant compared to other 15 owners whose farms lied in the vicinity. For their part respondents supported the decision aswarranted inlaw and founded on athorough inquiry into thefacts. The submission ofcounsel for theapplicant thattheprovisions of s.9
(4)(a) were inapplicable in the case of the applicant, is 20 untenable. As counsel for the respondents pointed out the provisionsof s. 9
(4)(a) areapplicable toevery application for a permit toerect abuilding,inview of thedefinition of "building", furnished by s.2 of the law, and the need for a permit for every building or structure covered by the provisions of s. 3
(1)(b) of 25 Cap. 96. Counsel argued that if this is the effect of the law, it may be very difficult, if not impossible, to license farm development outside water supply areas.That may be thecase butit is not for the Court, we may remind, to review or query the policy of the 30 lawaslaid down in theStatute Book. Next, we shall examine the case of the applicant for misconception of the facts or failure to attach to them the importancedueby theirintrinsicmerits. Emphasis was laid on theexistence of otherfarms inthearea, ^5 including a government farm for live-stock breeding, equally 444 3.C.L.R. Charalambides v. Republic Pikis J. proximatetothenewroad:Thisfact wasbefore theAuthoritiesand wecannot but presume thatitwasdulypondered inthecourseof examination of the case, as well as the fact that other farms existed inthe area.Theestablishment of a new road artery wasa 5 significant factor that theAdministration wasjustified totakeinto accountindiscerning whetherexceptional circumstances existed justifying departure from the provisions of s. 9
(4)(a). None of thefacts cited in support of theapplication put it beyond thediscretion of the appropriate authority, that is, respondent No. 2 to 10 reject the application for the reasons indicated in the letter of 2.1.87. Nor can I sustain the suggestion that the Administration omitted totakeintoconsideration any facts shedding lighton the meritsof theapplication. On the other hand, allegations to disciminatory treatment re15 mained factually unsubstantiated and legally inarticulated. Ishall concern myself nofurther with thisaspect of thecase. The fact thattheestablishment of thefarm of theapplicant was authorised, inthe first place, could not, in any way prejudge the fate of any application for the extension of it. Plans for the 20 development of an area, as well as theconcept of development, changeover theyears.Theconceptof development, cannot ever bestatic. Havinggivencareful consideration tothetotalityofthematerial before me,Iconcludethattheapplication mustbedismissed.The 25 decision must besustained. Thesubjudice decision is confirmed pursuant totheprovisionsof article 146.4(a)of the Constitution. Letthere benoorder astocosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. 445