(1988)1988March31 [SAVVIDES,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ELEFTHERIOS THEOPHANOUS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH THE REVIEW LICENSING AUTHORITY, Respondents. (Case No. 55187). Generalprinciples ofadministrativelaw—Recordsandminutesofproceedings andmeetings—Theneed tokeepsuchrecords andminutesinordertoenabletheCourttoexerciseJudicialcontrol—In thiscasethereiscompleteabsenceofminutesofwhattranspiredatahearing beforetherespondentsofa hierarchicalrecourseagainst therefusaltogranttotheapplicantalicencefor aruraltaxi—Court unabletoexercise itsJudicialcontrol—Subjudicedecision,wherebysuchhierarchicalrecoursewasdismissed, annulled. 5 The facts ofthiscasesufficiently appear intheJudgmentoftheCourt. Sufjjudice decisionannulled. Costsagainstrespondent. \Q Recourse. Recourse against the dismissal of applicant's hierarchical recourse against the decision of the Licensing Authority rejecting applicant's application for arural taxi licence. A. Papacharalambous with P. Angelides, for the applicant. 730 15 3 C.L.R. Theophanous v. Republic G.Frangou (Mrs), for the respondent. Cur.adv.vult. 5 10 15 20 9c 3Q SAVVIDES J. read the following judgment. The applicant seeks adeclaration of the Court that thedecision of the respondent,communicated tohim byletterdated 28.11.1986, by which hishierarchical recourseagainst thedecision of theLicensingAuthority rejecting his application for a rural taxi licence was dismissed,isnull and void andof nolegal effect. The applicant applied on 27.4.1984, for a licence for a rural taxi,tobe stationed atAlona village. The Director of theDepartment of Road Transport wrote a letter to the Chief of Police requesting toknow about theprofession of theapplicant, hisplace of business and whether he wasa suitable person for the grantof arural taxi licence, thepopulation of thevillage and whether the existing licensed rural taxi was circulating regularly for serving theneedsof thepublic.TheChief ofPolicereplied byletterdated 21.6.1984,statingthat theapplicant worksasabutcherinthevillage,which has about 900inhabitants,that heisasuitableperson and that although the licensed rural taxi circulates regularly, its owner and driver is more than 77 years old. The Transport Controller inhisreport dated 17.8.1984 stated thegrounds in support of theapplicant'sapplication (which weremainly totheeffect that theinhabitants of thevillage did not trust theowner of the existing rural taxi,on account of his age and the condition of his car and werenotusing thetaxifor.this reason) and that both theowner of theexisting licensed rural taxi and the owner of a licensed rural busobjected to thegrantingof the licence applied for (Blue 62in thefile of thecase,which isExhibit 1before theCourt). The Licensing Authority at its meeting dated 4th September, 1984,rejected the applicant's application on the ground that the needs of the village were adequately served by the existing licensed rural taxi.The applicant appealed on the26th September, 1984,against theabovedecision of the Licensing Authority, statingthathewill state thegroundsof hisappeal atthemeeting with 731 SavvidesJ. Theophanous v. Republic
(1988)theMinister (whowas theproper authority for hearing hierarchicalrecourses atthetime). TheDirector-General of the Ministry of Communications and Works requested, by letter dated 11.10.1984, a statement of the history of thecase from theDepartment of Road Transport. This 5 wassupplied on 16.10.1984, stating amongst others,that thevillageauthorities werefavouring the grantof the licence applied for (Blue67). Some time in November, 1984, Law 84/84 was enacted, by theprovisions of which the Review Licensing Authority was set up astheproper authority for hearing hierarchical recourses from thedecision of theLicensing Authority. 10 The nextdocument in thefile isthedecision of theReview Licensing Authority dated 11th October, 1986,which is as follows (Blue68): "TheReview Licensing Authority having taken intoconsideration the law in force and all thecircumstances of the case which wereput before it and after considering all the material intherelevant files and allthat has been said on thepartof the applicant and the parties interested, decides todismiss the re- 20 coursebecause theexisting licensed rural taxi servesthe needs ofthevillage of Alona". Theabove decision wascommunicated totheapplicant byletter dated 28th November, 1986,as a result of which the present recourse wasfiled. The application was based on thegrounds that 25 the subjudice decision wastaken contrary totheprovisions of the Law,without adue inquiry into the matter, under misconception of facts, in excess or abuseof powers and it isnotduly reasoned. Therecourse was originally also directed against the Minister of Communications and Works, but it was later withdrawn 30 against thisparty as hehasceased tobetheproper authority after theenactment of Law 84/84. 732 15 3 C.L.R. Theophanous v. Republic Savvides J. ^ Counsel for applicant arguedthat although it is stated in the subjudicedecision that all material facts weretaken intoconsideration, including the representations of the applicant, there is no record of the proceedings as to what was said by the applicant. Whatwasbefore therespondent was thefile of thecase (Exhibit 1) which included irrelevant and controversial material. He also argued that nothing is stated in the report of theTransport Controlleras totheneedsof the village and whether such needs were sufficiently served, and that the subjudice decision cannot be supported bythematerial which wasbefore the respondent. ^ From what Ican deduce from theaddressesof both counsel,a hearingmusthavetaken placebefore therespondentin which the parties concerned expressed their views. There is nothing, however,in thefile of thecase astosuch meetingoranyrecord atall as towhat has been said. 5 « :5 Ithas been stressed timeand again by thisCourt that administrativeorgans mustkeepproperrecordsof their proceedingsand minutes of their meetings soastoenable thecourt toexercisejudicial control. In the presentcase there is complete lack of minutes or records, as a result of which this Court cannot exercise itsjudicial control over the subjudice decision. It is not known what was actually said during the alleged hearing, what material wasmadeavailable totherespondent and how this material was evaluated by it. For thisreason Ifind that the subjudice decision mustbe annulled. In theresult thisrecoursesucceeds and thesubjudicedecision ishereby annulled with costsagainst the respondent. Sub judice decision annulled withcostsagainst respondent. 733