MR CLAASSEN
Thank you Mr Chair.  No, I absolutely agree with you it appears to be the situation.  Mr Chair what I'd like to get at is, if I might just, this, the Committee is a quasi judicial body, Mr Chair, and I think as far as the fact per se should we discuss, should we get to the point of the functus officio had the application been dealt with, I think it stands to reason that if a decision is reached based on all the relevant and available facts, and a decision is reached based on that, surely there is very little recourse in later coming, or later bringing the argument that the decision should be looked at again, if all the, all the factors had been considered.
	Mr Chair and especially, and referring to specifically that, it is my submission that I think, and as you rightly say, it stands to reason, whether the second one had been considered, and, or had it been considered after the decision had been made, which obviously would have complicated things a bit, if I may, it appears from the application, the way it has been put together, and as you say purely on the face of it, true that it might have been administrative of nature the fact that it was stamped on the same date.  Mr Chair I think my line of reasoning would be that the applicant  could consider himself extremely unlucky in the sense that he did indeed submit two applications before, if, as I say it stands to reason, the decision was made, and a conclusion was reached based on only one of those applications, the one which does not favour him, or puts him in a position where, ...(intervention)