clr/1988/1988_3_827.pdf

(1988)Thefacts of this caseappear sufficeintly from theJudgmentofthe Court. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: loannouv.Republic

(1983)3C.L.R.80; Milliotisv.Republic

(1986)3C.L.R. 1341. Recourse. Recourse for the immediateamendment of theregulations governing thepayment of ticketsoftheCovernment lottery ofdouble \Q chance. Applicant appeared in person. P. Clerides, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. A. LOIZOU P. read the following judgment. By the present recourse theapplicant whoprepared and conducted it totheend in person, seeks from theCourt the following reliefs: ^ "(

1. a)Immediate amendment of the relevant Regulations which govern thepayment of ticket of theGovernment lottery of double chance in a manner bringing them in line with the best known interest of both contracting parties,namely theauthority of the Government lottery on the one, and the applicant. (
2. b)The Regulations are obviously one-sided, contrary to therulesof naturaljustice,outside thereality and consequently ^5 cannot be applied, and in the last analysis constitute an invention of the devil for defrauding not only the applicant but all his colleagues and for that reason they must buried for there828 3 C.L.R. MiHotis v.Republic A.LoizouP. storationof theorderand·therestorationofjustice." 5 JO 15 20 2 c -Λ The applicant is an agent of Governmentlotteries for over twenty years, andhesells lottery tickets of "double chance",as from thecommencementof theircirculationin 1972.Onthe 9th March,1987 hepresented totheappropriateAuthorities of the Statelotteryfor paymentseventicketswith secretnumbersof the draw No. 51/86 which won thetotal amountof £5.25 cents. As thetimelimitfor thepresentationfor paymentofthesetickets had expired in accordancewith therelevant Regulations on the5th January 1987,theappropriate Authority refused topay thetick­ etswhich theapplicantpresented. The GovernmentLotteries Regulations 1956 to 1979 have been madeby virtueof theprovisions of section 5of the LotterriesLaw, Cap.74 asamendedby Law No.24of 1974.The time limitfor thepaymentof ticketsof theStatelotteryis governed by theprovisions of paragraph (b)ofRegulation9. The timelimit for thepresentationfor paymentof the tickets with thewinning secretnumbersof thedraw No.51/1986, which hadbeenfixed by theDirector of lotteries underthprovisions of theaforesaid paragraphendedonthe5thJanuary 1987.Thistime limit was set onthespecial pamphletwith which all theagents andsellersof GovernmentLottery ticketshadbeensupplied. Al­ thoughtherehadbeenraised andarguedonbehalf of the respon­ dentanumberof preliminary objections,Iintendoncetheapplicantis notalawyertoignorethemwithoutthissuggestingthat I dismiss them,and toproceedintheexamination of therecourse on themeritsbecause thiswill satisfy basically theclaim ofthe applicantandinawider sensehisprayerforjustice. Inprevious recourses thisCourthadtheoccasion toexamine otheraspects of theLotteriesLawsandtheRegulationsmadeby virtue of these provisions. In thecase of AnnieIoannou v.The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 80,theFull Bench of this Court up­ heldthefirstjudgmentwhichwaspublishedwiththesametitlein the Cyprus Law Reports

(1982)3 C.L.R. 80 concluding that 829 A.Loizou P. MUiotisv.Republic

(1988)Regulations 9 and 10were intra vires section 5 of the Lotteries Law. In his judgment in another case of the present applicant published as Nicos MUiotis v. The Republlic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1341, Stylianides J. , dismissed his recourse against the refusal of the respondent to pay him the value of two lottery tickets 5 which won seventy cents which were presented after thelastday fixed for such presentation, on the ground that therecourse was outof time. Inthepresentcase theapplicant inhiswritten addressputs forward the allegation that thesaid Regulations are "obviously one- JQ sided and contrary to the Rules of Natural Justice" and that the administration refused todischargetheobligationsithad assumed towardshim anditisargued thattheticket with thesecret number which wins,ispaid by the lottery ticket seller, that isthe lottery ticket sellerhastheobligation topaytheticket. ,<If one part of the aforesaid grounds could be considered as suggesting that the Regulations inquestion weremade ultra vires theLaw,thispointhasbeendecided bytheFullBenchinthecase of Annie loannou (supra) to which I have already referred and there is no need to proceed any further. It isworth noting, how- ^o ever, that the Government Lottery Regulations have been made by virtue of the provisions of section 5of theLotteries Law, and thefixingof thetime limit of twenty-one daysfor thepaymentof winning tickets with secret numbers wasmadeby theDirectorof Lotteries,by virtueof theauthority given tohim byRegulation 9. This time limit was fixed in 1972 when this type of lottery of "double chance" was introduced for the first time.The lottery agentor seller hasnoauthority orobligation under thelaw topay lottery tickets outside the time limit. Moreover therefusal of the appropriate organ topay outside thetime limit wasmade on the basis of the authority given by the Law and the Regulations and ™ as such is outside the rule of the control of the Administrative Court, so long as there had not been proved misconception of Law orfact, abuseorexcessof power and abuse orexcessin the exercise ofdiscretionay powers. 830 3 C.L.R. Miliotis v. Republic Λ. Loizou P. On theother hand the legal ground which is raised by theap­ plicant that therelevant Regulations to which Ihave referred are contrary to Articles 8 and 29 of theConstitution, cannot stand. Article 8 of the Constitution provides that "no person shall be subjected totortureorinhumanordegrading punishmentortreat­ ment". However wide interpretation may be given to this provi­ sion,same cannotbeconsidered thatit has any bearing onthe re­ fusal of the respondent to pay outside the time limt winning lottery tickets. Itsvalue if any,could only beconsidered from the point of view of authorities. On theother hand Article 29 can have nobearing whatsoever with thecomplaint of theapplicant, as same refers totheright of a person to petition any competent authority,"to address written requests orcomplaints and tohave themattendedtoand decided expeditiously" as regards thematters raised. For all the above reasons the recourse of theapplicant is dis­ missed. Taking, however, intoconsideration his personal circum­ stances as described in thecase which has been published inVol­ ume 1983

(3)C.L.R. 1341, at p. 1352 1make no order as to costs. Recoursedismissed. Noorder as to costs. 831