This is on the following grounds. The revocation of an administrative disposition due to changes in circumstances after said disposition was rendered is only permitted, when it is necessary for the public interest, under the authority of the administrative agency that rendered the disposition. As long as there are no provisions to stipulate that such disposition should be revoked or that the revocation can be sought, it cannot be construed that related parties have the right to seek such revocation. Furthermore, there are no provisions of that sort with regard to the revocation of the determination to the effect that a filling of an objection based on Article 49, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act lacks grounds. Accordingly, the appellant, who is the party to the determination in this case, should be construed to have no right to seek revocation of the determination.

... The judgment on whether or not to revoke the determination (to the effect that a filling of an objection based on Article 49, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act lacks grounds) due to changes in circumstances after making the determination and to allow granting of special permission to stay in Japan has the same nature as the judgment on whether or not to grant special permission to stay in Japan under Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, or from the perspective of the nature of the act to revoke the determination, which had been made legally and has effects, from the necessity for the public interest, the former should be construed to be subject to a wider discretion than the latter.

... Mandamus action to seek a disposition is filed for requiring that an order be given to the relevant administrative agency to render the disposition in cases where it should do so (Article 3, paragraph (6) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act), on the premise that said administrative agency has legal authority to render such disposition. When the relevant administrative agency does not have such legal authority, it cannot render such disposition, and then it is evident that mandamus action to seek such disposition cannot be filed.

The Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act provides that if a suspect in deportation procedures files an objection under Article 49, paragraph (1) of the Act and the Minister of Justice finds any circumstances that requires him/her to grant the suspect special permission to stay in Japan, he/she may grant the suspect such special permission (Article 50, paragraph (1) and Article 69-2). However, there are no provisions that allow the Ministry of Justice to grant special permission, without following such procedures, to a foreign national who had received the determination to the effect that a filling of an objection based on Article 49, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act lacks grounds, by taking into consideration new circumstances that arise after said determination was made. Nor are there any other grounds for admitting such authority.

Then, if a foreign national who had received the determination to the effect that a filling of an objection based on Article 49, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act lacks grounds intends to seek special permission to stay in Japan by presenting new circumstances that arise after said determination was made, the premise should be that said determination has lost its effects. Seeking special permission to stay in Japan in spite of the fact that said determination still maintains its effects is just requiring an administrative agency to render a disposition for which it has no legal authority. Such mandamus action to seek special permission to stay in Japan should be