(1988)1988 February 18 [LORIS,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION GEORGHIOS KAILAS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS, THROUGH THEMINISTEROFFINANCE, Respondent. (CaseNo. 1066185). Recoursefor annulment—Parties—Courtentitledto act expropriomotu and orderamendmentofthedescriptionoftherespondent. Tenders—Considerationof,inamannercontrarytotheprinciplesoffreecom petitionor inanirregularmanner—Groundforannulment. Tenders—Acceptance ofatender, whichwas notthelowest—Doesnotleadto 5 annulmentbyitself,becauseirHtccordancewith thetermsof theinvitation to submittenders, thetenderBoardwas notboundtoacceptthelowestor anytender. Tenders—Dueinquiry—Complaintthatthere hasnotbeenaproperinquiry— Notsubstantiated. 10 Thesubjudicedecision was takenby the"MainTenderBoard",andnot by theMinisterof Finance,referred tointhetideof therecourse. By meansof therecoursetheapplicantsimpugnedthedecision,where by thecontractfor theprintingof thebook" ΚυπριακάΔημώδηΆσματα" was awardedtoanothertenderer. Applicant'stenderwas thelowestThemaincomplaintwas for lackof due inquiry. Itmustbe noted thattheapplicantsdid notcomplywithterm 274 15 3 C.L.R. Kailas v. Republic No. 10of therequired specifications for theproposed printing,inthat they did not submit together with their tender, specimens of the "Photosynthesis"corresponding totherelevantprinting "type",referred tointhe specifications.When they later submitted such specimens, ittranspired thatthey werenotofthe"type"envisagedby the specification. 5 Inreaching thesubjudicedecision theBoard considered the viewsof the Government Printing Office, the recommendations submitted by the Scientific ResearchCentreand theviewsoftheauthorsofthebookinquestion. 10 15 Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Thesubjudicedecision wastakenby the "Main Tender Board".The description of therespondent in thetitleof therecourseshouldbeamended accordingly.
(2)Itiswellsettled thatiftheconsideration of tenderstakesplace ina mannercontrary totheprinciplesof freecompetition or inanirregular manneraffecting itsoutcomethen therelevant decision hastobeannulled.No such violationisalleged inthiscase.
(3)Onemustnotloosesightof thefactthatintheinvitation oftendersit wasclearly statedthattheBoard wasnotbound toacceptthelowestorany othertender. 20
(4)Thecomplaintasregardslackofdueinquirywasnot substantiated. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Christodoulou v.Republic, 1 R.S.C.C. 1; 25 Yiannaki v.Republic
(1965)3C.L.R. 561; Medcon Constructionand Othersv.Republic
(1968)3C.L.R.535; Kounnas and Sons Ltd. v.Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R.542; Christofides TradingLtd v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.546. 275 Kailasv.Republic
(1988)Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecision toawardthetenderfor printing thebook "ΚυπριακάΔημώδηΑσματα"tothe interestedparty in preference tothetenderof theapplicant A. Hadjiloannou, for the applicant. 5 A. Vladimirou, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. LORISJ.readthefollowingorderandjudgment: ORDER Thepresentrecoursewas filed against "theRepublic,through JQ the Ministry of Finance", apparently because thereply tothe complaintsof theapplicant (videAppendix ^Z" attachedtothe opposition) emanates from the "Ministry of Finance". As, however,thecompetence concerned,underRegulations 21and 22of theGovernmentStoresRegulations,isvesteddirectly tothe ."MainTenderBoard" whichis notreferred toatallinthetitleof thepresentrecourse,Iconsideritmoreproperthatthe description of theRespondentshould read:"TheRepublic throughthe Main Tenderboard,"andactingexpropiomotuIdoherebyorderthat the titleof theproceedings be treated as having beenamended accordingly. Ihavetakenthiscourseinthelightof thedecisionin Christodoulou and the Republic, 1 R.S.C.C.p.l, followed in ParaskeviYiannakiandtheRepublic,throughtheDistrictOfficer Nicosia-Kyrenia
(1965)3 C.L.R.561 atp. 564, as Iamof the opinionthattheamendmentatthisstage, doesnotprejudiceeither of theparties in theseproceedings, ortheinterests ofjustice, in 2-* any way. JUDGMENT The applicant by meansof thepresentrecourse,asamended 276 3C.L.R. 5 0 5 0 Kailas v.Republic Loris J. above, challenges the decision of the Main Tender Board (Communicated to the applicant by letter addressed to himon 23.10.85 on behalf of the Accountant-General as President,of theMainTenderBoard),whereby thecontractfor theprintingof the book " Κυπριακά Δημώδη Άσματα" in respect of which tenders wereinvited on 17.4.85was awarded to "Zavallis Press Ltd." in preference to the tender of the applicant and theother competitors. On 17.4.85theDirector- Generalof theMinistry ofEducation invited tenders for the printing of the above mentioned book (Videappendix "A" attachedtotheopposition aswellasrelevant specifications astoproposedprinting type attachedthereto). Fourtendersinallweresubmitted inresponse tothe aforesaid invitation of tenders amongst which those of the applicant and "Zavallis Press Limited" (vide attachmentstoappendix Βofthe opposition).TheDirectorof theScientific Research Centre after obtaining relevant information from all four applicants in connection with theproposed printing type and after enquiring with theHeadof theGovernmentPrintingOffice andobtaining his views onthematter,submitted his recommendations tothe respondentBoard(videappendixΒincludingannexesthereto). TherespondentBoard after considering theviews forwarded to it as aforesaid and having heard Messrs Menelaos Christodoulou and Kl. Ioannides-theauthors of thebook to be <- printed-decidedtoprefer the tenderof Zavallis PressLimitedand awarded to the latter the tender in question (Vide appendix Ε attachedtotheopposition). « The aforesaid decision of the Respondent Board was commumcated to the applicant on 23.10.85. The applicant on 8.11.85through his counsel,by letterof even date addressed to the respondent Board, sought explanations for the aforesaid decision submitting at the same time his complaints (vide appendixΕattachedtotheopposition). 277 LorisJ. Kailasv.Republic
(1988)On14.11.85aletterinreplywasforwarded totheapplicanton behalfoftherespondent Board(videappendix"Z"attachedtothe opposition). The applicant feeling aggrieved filed the present recourseprayingfor theannulmentof thesub-judicedecisionof respondentBoard. Itiswellsettledthat"iftheconsiderationoftenderstakesplace inamannercontrarytotheprinciplesoffreecompetitionorinan irregularmanneraffecting itsoutcomethentherelevantdecision has to be annulled." (Medcon Constructions and others v. Republic
(1968)3C.L.R.535andKounnas andSons Ltdand another v. Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 542- vide also in this connection Christofides TradingLtd. v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 546). 5 10 Therecourse of the applicant is not alleging any violations governing theprocedureregarding tendersnordoesitchallenge 15 thesuccessful tendererfor anyirregularity inthesubmissionof his tender. The complaints of the applicant,·as I was able to comprehendthem,aretotheeffect thataproperinquirywasnot carried out and as a result thereof the respondent Board acted under a misconception as to material facts; in addition the 20 applicantmaintainsthathistenderfortheprintinginquestionwas lowerthanthatofthesuccessful tenderer.Furthermorethereisa vagueallegationtotheeffect thatthesub-judicedecisionviolated the principle of "fair administration" in that the successful tendererwasfavourably treated,butthereisnothingonrecordto substantiatethelatterallegation. Before proceeding to examine the main complaint of the applicant,notablyfailureoftherespondentBoardtocarryoutdue enquiry, I intend to dispose of briefly the complaint of the applicanttotheeffect thathistenderfor theprintinginquestion waslowerthanthatofthesuccessful tenderer. It isan undisputed fact that the tender of the applicant was lowerthanthatofZavallisPressLtd,thesuccessful tenderer;in thisconnectionwemustnotloosesightofthefactthough,thatin 278 3 C.L.R. Kailas v.Republic LorisJ. theinvitation for tenders (videAppendix A-paragraph 4)itwas clearly stated thattheBoard wasnotboundtoacceptthelowestor anyother tender. Turningnowtotheissueofdue inquiry: 5 10 15 20 25 30 It isclear from the specifications as totheproposed printing type (viderelevant specifications attached toAppendix "A")that the printing of the said book could be made either by the "Monotype"orthe"Photosynthesis" system. Those submitting tenders for the printing by the "Photosynthesis" system wererequiredpursuant toparagraph 10 of the aforesaid specifications, to submit together with their tender, specimens of the "Photosynthesis" corresponding to the relevant printing "type", referred to in the specifications. The applicant failed to comply with the requisites of paragraph 10 above,of thespecifications, although histendermade itclearthat he intended to carry out the printing work by the system of "photosynthesis." AttheinstanceoftheScientific Research CentreMr. Menelaos Christodoulou, one of the members of the Research Centre, approached the applicant and urged him to submit the relevant printing "type". The applicant submitted some of the printing "types",which were notof the "type"envisaged bytherespective specifications; furthermore he stated that, asregards the special symbols of the CyprusIdiomaticdilect,hecould onlyfurnish "Upright"typeand "Italics" only, contrary to the specifications appended to the invitation for tenders(videinthisconnection therelevantmaterial inAdministrative filesExhibits 1 and2before me-alsothereport of Mr.MenelaosChristodoulou attached tothewritten addresson behalf of the respondent, which directly contradict the vague allegationsoftheapplicant setout inhisaffidavit of26.5.87). The Scientific Research Centerafter examining allthe tenders 279 LorisJ. Kailas v. Republic
(1988)and after obtaining the views of the Head of the Government Printing Office in view of the difficulties presented by the "photosynthesis" system, above,andtheconsequential inability oftheapplicanttocomplywiththespecifications astothetypeof printingaccompanyingtheinvitationsfortenders,(videAppendix 5 "B"includingannexesthereto)submittedhisrecommendationsto therespondent Board, whichhavingconsidered theviewsofthe GovernmentPrintingOffice, therecommendationssubmittedby the Scientific Research Centre and obviously after hearing the viewsofMessrsMenelaosChristodoulou andKl.Ioannides-the ,, authors of the book in question - who were present (vide Appendix "C") decided toaward the tender to Zavallis Press Ltd.,whoweretoperform theprintingwork bythe"monotype" printingsystemusingprinting"type"approvedand recommended bytheScientific ResearchCentre(videletterofDr.Kyrrisdated 6.9.85). It isabundantly clear from theabovethat a dueinquiry has been carried out by the respondent Board, before reaching its decisionwhichinthecircumstanceswasreasonablyopentoit. In the result present recourse fails and is accordingly « dismissed;inthecircumstancesIshallmakenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 280 l