clr/1987/1987_3_1496.pdf

(1)of the Law and not 7

(2)10 It is noteworthy that the respondents in their address did not contend that the interested party possesses the required qualifications of civil engineenng, but they said that the required qualifications arethose prescnbed by Section 7

(2)(a),(

1. b)and(
2. c)of the Law Itwas said further thatthe employment of civil engineer 15 and architect is interchangeable The respondents failed to construe thescheme of service If, however, they did interpretthe scheme of service as including architects, this could not be reasonably open to them having regard to the wording of the advertisement If, however, they did interpret the scheme of 20 service, asset outintheadvertisement of thepost,as meaning the qualifications prescnbed by Section 7

(2)(a), (

1. b)and {
2. c)of the Registration of Architects and the Civil Engineers Law, which refers to civil engineers and not to architects, but they failed to inquire into the qualifications of theinterested party, then, again, 25 their sub judice decision is faulty and cannot survive judicial scrutiny On any view of the matterthechallenged actis indefensible Ithas been held in a long senes of judgments of this Courtthat decisions of administrative organs have tobe duly reasoned and 30 that the absence of due reasoning is by itself a ground for invalidating a particular decision taken by an organ or authonty, and that their reasoning must be complete, ιe must state or indicate itslegalbasis Duereasoning isrequired inorderto make possible the ascertainment of the proper application of the Law 35 and to enable a guarantee of judicial control (Pancypnan Federation of Labour (PEO) ν Board of Cmemetograph Films CensorsandAnother

(1965)3 C L R 27, Sunshor EstatesLtd ν The Municipal Corporation of Famagusta

(1971)3 C LR 440, Kynahdesv TheRepublic

(1976)3C LR 364;Papageorghiou ν 40 The Republic

(1984)3 C LR 1348, Argyrou ν The Republic 1509 StylltmidesJ. Nlcolaldes v.M'Iityof Latsia

(1985)3 C.L.R. 559; Alona Co-Operative Society v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 222;Anstides v. TheRepublic

(1986)3 C.L.R 466.) Moreover, decisions of collective organs, such as the one with which we are dealing with, are particularly required to be -r> reasoned because of the fact that such decisions are expected to betheresultofthedeliberationsofthemembersofthesaid organs (seeTsatsos Recourse forAnnulment before the Council of State, 3ded. p.235). In the sub judice decision there is no reasoning at all The 10 appointment was made by secret voting without any deliberations. No reasoning was given by any of the membersof the Council -voters.Adefective exerciseofdiscretion amountsto excessorabuse ofpower. (ImpalexAgencies Ltd. v. The Republic (The Minister of Commerce and Industry)

(1970)3 C.L.R. 361, 15 375.) The Municipal Council is a corporate body - a collective organ. Vote is secret in the municipal elections; but a collective organ ofLocal Government hastodeliberate and givereasons for itsdecisions, and the minority may, also,givetheir own reasons. Looking at the sub judice decision it cannot be said that it 20 satisfies the requirement of due reasoning; itisnotreasoned atall; no reasoning can be supplemented or supplied bythe materialin the file.Itiscontrarytotheprinciplesofadministrative lawandwas taken in abuse and excess of power. For all the foregoing the recourse succeeds. The sub judice 25 decision is declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever under Article 146.4(b). Respondents topay £125. -costs ofthe applicant. No order as to costs between the applicant and the interested party. Subjudice decision annulled. Respondents to pay £125.-costs. 1510 30