|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1987) 3 CLR 1052
1987 June 5
[A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, LORIS, PIKIS, KOURRIS, JJ.]
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (NO. 4),
Appellant - Respondent,
v.
MARINA POTOUDES AND OTHERS,
Respondents - Applicants.
(Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 680).
Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal - Lack of service of recourse on interested parties - Effect.
An objection was raised to that part, of the address of counsel for the interested parties, which raised issues not included in R.A. 680 filed by the Appellant Commission, but included in R.A. 682, filed by the interested parties.
Held, (1) The question of non service of Recourses 106/84 and 113/84 was left in abeyance by the ruling of 10.3.87 as, at the time, it appeared that no useful purpose would be served by delving into it. Now the position changed.
(2) The nonservice of the two recourses amounts to a ground of nullity and this matter can be examined by the Court ex proprio motu. It follows that the judgment in so far as it relates to such recourses must be set aside.
Judgment in so far it relates
to Recourses 106/84 and
113/84 set aside.
Objection.
Objection raised to the part of the address of Counsel for the interested parties which aimed at raising grounds of appeal not included in the notice of appeal filed by the appellant Public Service Commission.
A. Vladimirou, for the appellant.
A. Angelides, A. Ladas, N. Papaefstathiou, for the respondents.
L. Papaphilippou, for the interest parties.
A. LOIZOU J gave the following ruling of the Court. In the course of the address of learned counsel for the interested parties an objection was raised to the part of his address which aimed at raising grounds of appeal not included in the notice of R.A. 680, filed by the appellant Commission. It may be mentioned here, however, that these grounds were raised in R.A. 682 which was filed by the interested parties but as it had been ruled by this Court it would have been heard separately.
After a ruling of this Court was given by our learned Brother Pikis J., it became necessary to decide the objections which had been raised earlier in connection with the right of an interested party to file an appeal though such party had not appeared and had not taken part in the proceedings in the first instance. Equally connected with this issue was once more the fact which by our two rulings of the 10th March, 1987, we had decided in the first one that the question of service of a litigant could independently of whether the matter was raised in the grounds of appeal, also be entertained on its own motion by the Court as the examination of any other ground of appeal would be futile, and by our second ruling we concluded that no service had been effected in recourses 106 and 113 with which we are concerned in Revisional Appeal 682, though alongside with Recourse No. 96/84.
In the ruling, having reached that conclusion we set aside the judgment given in recourse No. 96/84 on the ground that there had been a violation of the rules of natural justice, the non-service being a ground of nullity and not a mere irregularity, but we left in abeyance the same issue as regards recourses Nos. 106/84 and 113/84 as we were of the opinion at the time that for practical reasons it would serve no purpose to set aside the judgments once the interested parties in those recourses had been served with other recourses challenging the same administrative act.
Now the matter has to be resolved for the reasons already given. Having considered the matter we have no difficulty in following our previous two rulings and conclude that the non-service of these two recourses on the interested parties amounts to a ground of nullity and not an irregularity and that this matter could be examined by this Court ex proprio motu. We therefore set aside the judgment given in so far as it relates to these two recourses also. Once that has been done R.A. 682 remains without a subject matter to be challenged by it and should be considered that its purpose has come to an end.
We intend therefore to proceed with the hearing of R.A. 680 on the grounds that appear on the notice filed.
Order accordingly.