(1987) 3 CLR 1516
[*1516] 1987 October 8
[PIKIS. J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
DEMETRIS FACONTIS,
Applicant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
1. THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATINS AND WORKS,
2. THE REVIEW. PERMITS AUTHORITY.
3. THE PERMITS AUTHORITY,
Respondents.
(Case No. 801/85).
Motor Transport- The Motor Transport Regulation Law 9/82, section 5(9)-Cars hired without a driver- Whether licensing of, within ambit of section 5(9)-. Question determined in the affirmative (L. P. Loucaides Ltd. v. Republic (1987)3C.L.R. 1511 adopted).
The issues in this case are:
(a) Whether section 5(9) of Law 9/82 is applicable to «Z» cars, and
(b) Whether the sub judice decision is liable to be set aside for misconception of facts.
Held, dismissing the recourse: (1) For the reasons expounded in L.P. Loucaides Ltd. v. The Republic (1987) 3 C.L.R. 1511 the licensing of Z cars is within the ambit of the aforesaid section.
(2) In the light of the material before the Permits Review Authority it was at the least open to them to find that applicant failed to meet the relevant requirements of section 5 sub-section 9 of the law.
Recourse dismissed.
Cases referred to:
L.P. Loucaides Ltd. v. The Republic (1987) 3 C.L. R. 1511. [*1517]
Recourse.
Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to grant applicant a licence to own, manage arid run a number of cars for the purpose of hiring them to others.
Chr. Clerides, for the applicant.
St. Ioanides (Mrs.), for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
PIKIS J. read the following judgment. As in Recourses 800/85 in which judgment was given earlier today the first issue calling for resolution is the applicability of Section 5 sub-section 9 of The Transport Regulation Law, 1982 (9/82) to cars designated for hire to third parties, commonly known as cars. For the same reasons to those indicated in the judgment in the aforementioned case the answer is in the affirmative: and the requisites laid down therein must be satisfied before a person is licensed to acquire «Z» cars. I need not repeat the content of that decision: it is sufficient if a copy is appended hereto and is read as an integral part of this judgment. Consequently the argument raised on behalf of the applicant that the decision of the respondents, the Permits Review Authority, is bad for misconception of the law fails. It remains to decide whether their decision is vulnerable to be set aside for misconception of the facts, especially those relevant to the business or occupation of the applicant and his future intentions with regard to his occupation.
The inquiry of the respondents revealed that at the time of the application the main occupation of the applicant was that of importer and trader of cars and machinery. The hire of cars was a wholly secondary activity, independent from his principal occupation. He was hiring the one car he owned to a firm of professional transporters on a yearly or periodical basis. Hardly any concrete evidence was adduced before the respondents establishing a plan on the part of the applicant to make the transport business his main occupation in the future. In the light of the material before the Permits Review Authority it was at the least open to them to find that applicant failed to meet the relevant requirements of Section 5 sub-section 9 of the law. In view of this finding the application must be dismissed and I so direct: The sub [*1518] judice decision is hereby confirmed pursuant to the provisions of Article 146.4(a) of the Constitution.
Recourse dismissed.
cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο