(1988)1988September15 [HADJTTSANGARIS,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ARIFANLIMITED, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEMINISTRYOFAGRICULTURE ANDNATURALRESOURCES, 2.THEPRESIDENTOFTHETENDER BOARD, Respondents. (CaseNo. 962/85). Discretion ofadministration—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable—Court will notsubstitute its discretion to thatof theadministration—In thiscase thesubjudtce decision toaward thetenders tothe interestedparties was reasonablyopentotherespondents. Thefactsof thiscasesufficiently appearin thejudgmentof theCourt. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: • Christodoulou v. CYTA
(1978)3 C.L.R.61; TheRepublic v.Myrtiotis
(1975)3C.L.R.484. Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionof therespondentstoawardthe tenderforthesupplyofReagentstotheinterestedpartyinsteadof 1760 10 3 C.L.R. Arifan Ltd v.Republic theapplicants. [ Ph. Valiantis,for theapplicants. N. Charalambous,Senior Counselof theRepublic, for therespondents. 5 'G.TriahtafyHides, for theinterested party. Cur. adv. vult. 10 HADJITSANGARIS J. read the following judgment. By this recourse theapplicant company seeks the annulment of thesubjudice decision of theTender Board whereby theBoard accepted thetenderof theinterested parties for the supply of Reagents insteadof thatof theapplicants. The grounds upon which therecourse isbased are:
(1)That thedecision wastaken inexcessorabuseof power. 15
(2)That the decision was not duly reasoned and that its reasoningdoesnotaccord withthe facts.
(3)That therewasabreachoftheprincipleof equal treatment, provided bythe Constitution.
(4)Itisalsoargued thatthetenders accepted didnot satisfy the termsof theinvitation. > 20 25 Therespondents deny all the above allegations and in answer allegethat thedecision wastakenindueexercise of discretionary administrative powers.Thesamestandpoint istakenbytheinterested party C.G. Christofides and SonLtd. Astothefacts of thiscaseitiscommon ground that following theinvitation for tendersbytheDepartment of Agriculturefor the supply oflaboratory Reagentsfour tenderswere submitted by the 1761 Hadjitsangaris J. Arifan Ltd v. Republic
(1988)date specified, thatof theapplicants,andthoseofC.G. Christofides and Son Ltd., G.A. Stamatis and Son, and G.A. Gavrielides.TheTenderBoardeventuallyacceptedthetendersofC.G. Christofides and SonLtd. andG.A.StamatisandSon (interested parties) and did not accept those of theapplicants andGavrie- 5 lides. Inhiswrittenaddres: learnedcounselfortheapplicantsargued asperthefactsrelieduponintherecoursethattheapplicants'tenderwasinfull compliancewiththetermsoftheinvitation,whereasthatoftheinterestedpartieswasnot,andhefurther arguedthat 10 the applicants' tender was cheaper asto a numberof itemsrequiredthanthatoftheinterestedparty. Learnedcounselfor therespondentsrelied onthefacts stated in theopposition andproduced theletterdated24.8.85whereby the ActingDirectoroftheDepartmentofAgricultureexpressed. 15 his views on the four tenders.As stated in theletter the applicants'tendershouldberejected becausealthough 19outofthetotal of 58itemsrequired wereoffered at thelowestcosttheunit quantities atwhich they wereoffered weremuchlargerthanrequired. Ashefurther expressly stated "such largequantities are 20 unacceptablefor useinourLaboratoryasnotonlytheyareinconvenienttohandlebutalsotheymayenhancedecomposition,oxidation andotherforms of degradationof theReagents".Inaddition he stated that the principles of the applicants were not a knownanalytical reagentscompany andwasoffering chemicals 25 to them for thefirsttime.Thus,hesuggested that thetenderof theinterestedpartiesbeacceptedonthebasisthattheitematthe lowestcostispreferredprovideditisinaccordancewiththespecifications.TheBoardproceededtoacceptthetenderoftheinterestedparties. 3Q Byaletterdated 17.9.85theapplicantscomplained aboutthe rejection of their tender and requested thereasons for itsrejection. Byaletterdated20.9.85theMinistryofAgriculturerepliedto 1762 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Arifan Ltd v.Republic Hadjitsahgaris'j. the saidletterpointing outthatthereasons for therejection were given in the letter dated 24.8.85, and'specifically explained to them with regard to the 14items which the applicants claimed wereoffered tothematthelowestcostwhytheirtendercouldnot beaccepted.'Specifically theypointedoutthat theunitorpack as to 9 items was not in accordance with the invitation being as to largerquantities and that for thereasons stated intheletter dated 24.8.85 such largequantities wereunsuitable.Further the specifications of theinterested parties as tothe 14items were moredetailed andcompletethan thoseof theapplicants.Only twoof the items offered by the applicants were of the same purity as those oftheinterestedparties.Theletterfurther givesingreatdetail full reasonsfor therejection of theapplicants' tender. Having considered thedocumentary evidencebefore me Iam fully satisfied thattherespondentsinreachingtheirsub-judicedecision, had considered all the facts before them in their proper prospective and hadreached such decision after aproper inquiry andtheirdecision isfully reasoned and justified. 'Itisawellestablishedprincipleof Administrative Law thatthe Court will notinterfere or substitute itsown discretion for thatof the administrative organ to which thediscretionary power is entrusted, provided such organ has not exceeded its bounds of its discretionary poweranditsdecision wasduly reasoned. Aslong asthedecision in accordance with theabovewasreasonably open tothe organ inquestion the principles of administrativejustice arenot offended. Christodoulouv.CYTA
(1978)3 C.L.R. 61,The Republic v.Myrtiotis
(1975)3 C.L.R. 484. In thepresent case on thematerial before me and theview of the facts Ihave taken it isclear tome that thedecision taken by therespondent wasnot only reasonably open tothem but wasin fact fullyjustified inthecircumstances andduly reasoned. 1763 Hadjitsangaris J. Arifan Ltd v. Republic
(1988)In theresult therecourse fails andisherebydismissed butin thecircumstancesImakenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. 1764