3 CX.R. 1988September30 ^ • -. ·,)Λ [MALACHTOS.J.]* j a . i INTHEmTfER OFARTICLE 146'OFTHE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE1460F THE CO . ι
- , *• - • · ;. ^ SATURN BUILDINGCO. LTD., Applicant, v. Κ.·1 . THEMUNICIPALITY.OFNICOSIA, •ι ι . ν •„ '· ' • ' · . ', . , • . ' --.. ' . Respondents. • . . » r i - . ' : '• · . . ' (Ca« Wo. 522/56). Timewithinwhichtofilearecourse underArt, 146.1 oftheConstitution. *- ι * "•r * Thisrecourse, wherebythedecision toaward atendertoathirdperson ischallenged,was filed on21.8.
- Theapplicantsallegedthattheynever received aletterdated20.2.86informing them of theaward toathird per. son.^However,from aletterdated3.6.86addressed byapplicantstothe re spondent, the,Courtconcludedthattheapplicantshadknowledgeof thesub judice actasearly as the3.6.86;consequently,therecoursewasdismissed asbeingoutoftime. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto.costs.. λ· • J I. t ' Recourse. , Recourse against the decision of the respondent to award the tender for the-widening,-deepening and covering of the Pallourio 1 tissa drain, Phase "C'Uothe interested party instead of to theap plicants. A. Skordis with A. Papacharalambous., for the applicants. . K. Michaelides, for the respondents.·,·. '• _ ·, '-.'.. ' 1811 •*'• *. - ?v' Gur.>adv..vult. Saturn Building v. N'sia M'lity
(1988)MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. In this recoursetheapplicantclaimsadeclarationoftheCourtthatthedecision of therespondent Boardof 12.6.86,whichwascommunicated tothe applicant company on 14.6.86,bywhich itstender for the widening,deepening and covering of thePallouriotissa 5 drain,Phase "C",wasrejected, is null andvoid andof nolegal effect whatsoever. Therelevantfactsofthecasearethefollowing: On 7.2.85 the respondent Board invited, through the local press,tenders for the widening,deepening andcovering of the 10 Pallouriotissa drain, Phase "C". The applicant company was amongtheeighttendererswhosubmittedtheirtenders. Therespondent Board awarded thecontract for the aforesaid works tothe lowest bidder, namely, "KOUPIE IKODOMIKES EPIHIRISIS LTD". Theapplicantcompany,accordingtotheallegationsoftherespondents Board, wasinformed by letterdated 20.2.86,thatits tenderwasrejected. Itistheallegationoftheapplicantcompany thatthisletterwasneverreceived. On5.6.86theapplicantaddressedalettertotherespondenten- 20 quiringaboutthefateofitsaforesaid tenderandrequestingthereturnofthebankguaranteesubmittedtogetherwithit,intheevent ofitstendernotbeing successful. Therespondent byletterdated 12.6.86,referred theapplicant totheletterofthe20thFebruary, 1986,andastothereturnofthe 25 bankguarantee,advisedhimtoapplytohisbankers. It must be noted here that before 5.6.86 the applicant addressed,on 3.6.86, another letter totherespondent where,inter alia,complained aboutanothertendererwhowasnotan officially registeredcontractorundertheRegistrationandControlofBuild- 30 ingContractorsandTechnicalWorksLawsof 1973 and 1982,to 1812 15 3 C.L.R. Saturn Building v. N'sia M'lity Malachtos J. whom thecontracthad been awarded contrary to theexisting le gislation. • ', .' I.I Μ Therelevant partof theletterof 3.6.86reads as follows: JP«( * 10 15 jt · -.J-* . } •>:; .·..*. •u / . "In connection with theconstruction of the works for the widening, deepening and.coyering of thePallouriotissa drain, Phase "C", Iwish toinform you thatas regards the said works the tender of our company amounted to about £129,000 and • we were second on thelist of the successful tenderers.From personal contacts and confidential informations we were assured thattheconstructionwould be awarded tous as thefirst tendererwas notanofficially registered building contractoron the basispfLaw 32/82.$ appears,howeyer, that again thein visiblehandintervened'to,ourdetrimentsince uptothepresent day, Mr.Maypr,^with your own signature, theworks arecarried outillegally against the'ihterest of 6iir company". -,.Οη21.8.86theapplicant filed thepresent recourse. Oneof thegrounds on which theopposition is based is thatthe recourse was filed outof time. 20 f 25 ... Itis clear from^the above thatthe applicant, when.addressing theletterof 3.6.8,6was.awarethatthecontracthadbeen awarded to a third party, which,was^already constructing the works in question. .^ t . „.. , ,; Therefore,evenif.we assume thattheletterof 20.2.86was not received, he had sufficient knowledge of the subjudice decision at least on 3.6.86. Therefore, the present recourse was clearly filed beyond the75 days timelimit provided by Article 146.3 of the'Constitution and so it is outof time. Consequently, this recourse cannot be entertained and must, therefore, be dismissed; ' . . · · . · . » .·,.,ν-Λ -_ w . t '., - Μ. - r . .. L vo ,... Intheresult, thisrecourse fails andis hereby dismissed. Therewill be noorder as tocosts. Recourse,dismissed. >'* No orderas tocosts. 1813