(1989)l9S9May20 |MALACHTOS,J.] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION GEORGHIOS CHRYSANTHOU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUSTHROUGH THE MINISTER OF COMMUNICATION AND WORKSAND ANOTHER (NO.l), Respondent. (CaseNo.117/77) Abatement of recoursefor annulment— Ifannulmentmay support a right to damages under Art. 146.6of the Constitution, the recourse is not abated. The applicant in the recourse was not granted a road service license 5 in respect of bus registration number X752. The bus was sold by applicant at some time following the reservation of the judgment in the recourse. As a result the interested party filed an application for dismissing the recourse on theground that the applicant in the recourse no longer had a legitimate interest. Applying theprinciple appearing in 10 thehereinabove Headnote, the Court dismissed thelatter application. Application dismissed. No order as to costs. 15 Casesreferredto: Hapeshisv. Republic
(1979)3 C.LR. 550, Christodouhdesv.Republic
(1978)3 C.LR.
- 586 20 3 C.L.R. Chr\santhou v. Republic &Another (No.l) Recourse. Application bythe interested partyfor there-opening of the recourse to hear argument to the effect that the recourse 5 remained without an object, the applicant having alienated his busin 19S
- C. Veiaris. for theApplicant -Interested party. 10 A. Pantelides. for theRespondent -Applicant. CI.Theodoulou (Mrs).Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent. 15 Cur. adv.vult. MALACHTOS,J.read the following Judgment.The present recourse was filed by the applicant against the decision of the respondent Minister dated 26.2.77 to revoke the decision of 20 29.6.76 by which the applicant was granted a road service licence in respect of his bus Reg. No. X752 with the right to carry passengers from the villages of Linou, Flasou. Katydata, Skoyriotissa. Kalon Chorion,Ayios Nicolaos and Petra. 25 The applicant in the present application, the Linou - Flasou Transport Co., filed on 21.7.76 a hierarchical recourse before the Minister who.as a result, revoked his aforesaid decision of 29.6.
- 30 The casewasheardbythisCourt andjudgment was reserved on26.10.
- On 2.10.81 an application was filed by the aforesaid interested party for the recourse to be re-opened to hear 35 argument to the effect that the recourse remained without an object, the present respondent-applicant, having alienated his busin question inJune 1981.Itwassubmittedthat the applicant hadthus lost hislegitimate interest which shouldexist up to the time of judgment. 40 Therespondent applicant- ontheotherhand,arguedthat itis necessary for an applicant accordingtothegeneral principlesof 587 Malachtos, J. Chrysanthou v. Republic &Another (No.l)
(1989)Administrative Law, to possess such legitimate interest both at the time of filing and hearing of a recourse, but it is not necessary for such interest toexist uptothe time of deliveryof the judgment. 5 Asfar asthe question oflegitimateinterest isconcerned, itis not disputed that therespondent applicant disposed ofhisbusin June 1981 because, as he states in his affidavit filed in opposition, he wasnot granted until then aroad service licence bytheLicensingAuthoritywhichwasnecessary forhiminorder 10 to beable to operate suchbus. It is also not disputed that the present respondent applicant possessedanexistinglegitimateinterestbothatthetimeof filing the recourse and at the time that judgment was reserved. The 15 refusal of the respondent Minister to grant the applicant the licence he applied for amounts to an administrative act which has produced permanent results. I do not think, therefore, that due to the sale of the bus in question by the respondentapplicant, the recourse was abated but I consider that the 20 validity of the sub judice decision still has to be pronounced upon because if it were to be found to be invalid, such finding may entitle the applicant in the recourse to damages, if any, under Article 146.6 of the Constitution. (See Hapeshis v.The Republic
(1979)3C.L.R. 550,at p.557-562; Christodoulides 25 v. TheRepublic
(1978)3C.L.R. 193,196-197). For the reasons stated above, this application is hereby dismissed, with no order astocosts. 30 Application dismissed.No order astocosts. 588