(1988)1988May 14 [PIKIS,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION 1.ANDROULLA YIOLITES-CHARALAMBIDES, 2.GEORGHIOS L.CHARALAMBIDES, 3. IOANNIS L.CHARALAMBIDES, THROUGH THEIR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE LEONTIOS CHARALAMBIDES, Applicants, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OFLIMASSOL, Respondents. (CaseNo. 405/87). Practice—Recourse for annulment—Intervention by thirdpartiesfor purpose of being joined as interested parties—Principles applicable—Absence of formal oppositiontoapplicationdoesnotpredetermineitsfate. This is an application by the owners of petrol stations, situated on or near Nicos Pattichis Street,in Limassol,tointerveneand takepartas interested parties in thisrecourse, which isdirected against therefusal to grant totheapplicantsapermitfor theerectionof apetrol station. Theapplication wasnotopposed. Held, dismissing the application:
(1)Absence of opposition does not sealtheoutcomeof theapplication.Thematterisoneofpubliclaw.
(2)The interestof the intervener mustbeseparate anddistinctfromthat of thegeneral public.Itneednotbeidentical with thatofthe respondent
(3)Theerection of apetrol station isa matterwholly different from the 972 I 3 C.L.R. Yiolites & Others v. L' ssol Municipality licensing of theoperation of a station.The subjudice decision was taken solely under theStreetsand BuidingsRegulation Lawand the Regulations madethereunder. Applicantsdonothavean interestdistinctfrom thatofthe generalpublic. 3 Applicationdismissed. Casesreferredto: Vorkasand Others v.TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R.87; Josephides v.The Republic, 2R.S.C.C.72; Theodoridesand Others v.Ploussiou
(1977)3C.L.R.319. 10 Application Applicationbythirdpartiesforleavetointerveneasinterested parties. E.Theodoulou,for applicants(interveners). R.Michaelides, forrespondents-applicantsintherecourse. .. Y.Potamitis, forrespondents. Cur. adv. vult. PUGSJ.read thefollowingjudgment. Thisisan application bytheownersoffourpetrolstationssituateonornearNicosPattichisStreet,Limassol,for leavetointervenein theproceedings 20 andtakepartasinterestedparties.TheywanttobeheardinsupportofthedecisionoftheMunicipality ofLimassol,refusing an applicationofthepursuersfortheissuanceofabuildingpermitto erectapetrol stationonNicosPattichisStreet.TheMunicipality raised noobjection totheintervention.Fortheirparttheappli«. cantsinthemaincausereconciled,intheend,totheparticipation intheproceedingsofthepetrol stationownersasinterestedparties.Earlier,theyobjected totheirinterventiononthegroundthat 973 Pikis J. Yiolites & Others v. L' ssol Municipality
(1988)theyhadnolegitimate interesttodefend.Theirapplication wasrejected on the basisof therelevant provisions of theStreetsand Buildings Law - Cap. 96, and Regulations made thereunder, solelyaffecting theexerciseofthestatutorypowersoftheMunicipalityofLimassol. Examinationoftheopposition supportstheviewthattheapplication for abuildingpermit wasrefused for reasonswhollyunconnected withtheinterestoftheintervenersorlikelyprejudiceto theirbusinessinterests.Itwasexclusively basedontheviewtakenoftherelevantprovisionsofthelawandRegulations,incon- JQ junction withplansforfuture developmentofthearea. Theabsenceofformal oppositiontotheapplicationforintereventiondoesnotsealthefateoftheapplication.Thematteratissueis notoneinterpartesbutamatterofpubliclawalsonecessitatingexamination of aprocedural stepfrom theangleofpublic ^5 interest, in Vorkas andOthers v.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R.87 wehadoccasion toconsiderthenatureoftheinterestnecessaryto justify joinder of someone as an interested party. (See, also, Josephides v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 72,75; and Theodorides and Othersv.Ploussiou
(1976)3C.L.R.319).The intervener ^ musthaveaninterestakintothatofanapplicantthoughnotnecessarily identical.Professor Tsatsos takestheview thatamore flexible ruleapplies todeterminethelegislation ofjoinderofan interestedparty.Weneednotdebatethematteratanygreatlength inthiscase,savetostressthattheinterestof theintervenermust beseparateanddistinctfrom thatofthegeneralpublicoranyparticularsectionofit.Proceedingsofjudicialreviewofadministrative action are notin thenatureof actiopopulariseitherfor the purposeof identifying theinterestof theapplicantorthatofthe intervener.Thishavingbeensaidwemustaddthattheinterestof theintervenerinsupportingthedecisionunderreviewneednotbe ™ identicalwiththatofthedecision-makingbody. Theinterest of thesuggested interveners inthesustenanceof the decision here under review is nodifferent from that of the generalpublicorlargesectionsofit,suchasthetownsmenofLi- 35 974 5 3 C.L.R. 5 Yiolites & Others v. L' ssol Municipality Pikis J. massolorof thequarter wherethebuilding siteissituate.Thedecision isfounded on theapplication of building law and Regulations made thereunder taken in the interest of town planning. Hence they lack thedistinctpersonal interest necessary to justify joinderasinterestedparties. The erection of a building designed to accommodate a petrol station isamatter wholly separatefrom thelicensingof theoperation of the station. For premises to beused as a petrol station, a licence is required under the provisions of the Petroleum Law, 10 Cap.272.Had thedecision at issue concerned the licensing and the use of the premises as a petrol station, presently inexistent, they might conceivably have a legitimate interest to support through intervention as interested parties. No definite answer needbegiven tothatquestion eitherfor, itdoesnot arise for con,c sideration or decision. Suffice torule thatthe applicants have no right tointervene.Their application is,therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed. 975