clr/1988/1988_3_451.pdf

(1988)TheapplicantschallengedtheawardbyarecourseunderArticle146.1. Before theissuanceofjudgmentinthesaidrecourse,theGovernmentrevokedtheaward,onthegroundthatthetenderofT.D.C.didnotcomply withthespecifications ofthetender.TheGovernmentdecided,also,toreviewitsdecisionregardingthedevelopmentofPaphos.TheCourtannulled .5 thedecisiontoawardthetendertoT.D.C. Bymeans >fthisrecoursetheapplicantschallenge: (a)Respondent'sallegedomission toeradicatecompletelyandasprovidedbyArticle 146.5oftheConstitution theeffects oftheannulleddecision, and (b) the respondents' omission to complete the procedure by \Q awardingthetendertooneofthethreeremainingtenderers. Helddismissingtherecourse:

(1)InthelightofthedecisioninRepublic v. Nissiotou

(1985)3C.L.R. 1335an omission deriving from breachof Article146.5isnotjusticiableunderArticle146.1

(2)Thesecondomissionconcerningtheinactionfollowing therevoca- 15 u'on isagain notjusticiable becausetheAdministration wasnotboundto proceedandimplementtheprocedureasfarastheparticulartenderswere concerned.Onlywherethelawcastsapositivedutytoactisanomission reviewable inthecontextof Article 146of theConstitution. BeforethetakingofafinaldecisiontheAdministration hasanunfettered 20 discretion,tochangeitscourse. Before thatstageisreached,theadministrativeactionisregardedasan internumoftheAdministration. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts.25 Casesreferredto: Nissiotouv. The Republic

(1983)3C.L.R.1483; Chenasv.TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R. 241; 452 3 C.L.R. Tekne v. The Republic Republic v.Nissiotou

(1985)3 C.L.R.1335; Zachariadesv. TheRepublic

(1984)3C.L.R.

1. Recourse. Recourse against theomission of therespondents to conform 5 and giveeffect tothedecision of the Supreme Coun in Recourse No. 331/86given the 13th March,
2. A.S. Angelides, for the applicants. N. Charalambous, Senior Counselof theRepublic, for therespondents. 10 Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS.J.read thefollowingjudgment. The application forjudicialreviewisdirectedagainst twoseparatebutcorrelatedomissionsof theAdministration, affecting thetenderof the applicants for thepreparation of thefeasibility study for thetourist develop15 mentof Paphos.Theyare— (A)Omission toconform and giveeffect tothedecision of the SupremeCourt givenon 13/3/87inRecourse 331/86,and (B)omission orfailure toreactivateanddrawtoconclusion the procedure for the award of the tenders following thedecision of 20 theCourt intheaboveCase. Inorder tounderstand thegrievancesof theapplicants andexamine them in the pertinent legal framework, detailed reference must bemadetothefacts of thecase. Itall started with a government decision toinvitetenders for a 25 feasibility studyof thetouristdevelopment of Paphos. Prequalifications werelaiddownconcerning theeligibility oftenderers.An ad hoc Ministerial committee selected four tenderers as suitably 453 Pikis J. Tekne v. The Republic

(1988)qualified tosubmit tenders,including theapplicants andTourist Development Consultants (T.D.C); and thematterwas referred toacommitteefortheevaluation ofthetenders.The committee raisedcertainquestions affecting thecompatibility ofthetenderof T.D.C. with thespecifications oftheinvitation totender.Their queries concernedconformity toaspects ofthespecifications of the invitation (reportdated 3/9/85). Similar doubts wereenter­ tainedbytheCentralTenderBoardthatmeton 16/9/85 toconsid­ er thematter;sequentially, legal advice wassought. Subject to this arecommendationwasmadefortheaward ofthetenderto 10 T.D.C. On 17/1/86theMinisterial committeeapproved the rec­ ommendationoftheCentralTenderBoardandawarded thetender to T.D.C. Notwithstandingtheabove decisionoftheMinisterialcommit­ tee,doubtspersisted astotheproprietyoftheaward ofthetender 15 to T.D.C. :Inparticular, whether their tenderconformed tothe conditionsset forth intheinvitation totender.Thematterwasre­ ferred anew totheAttorney - General,Finally,theDeputyAttor­ ney - GeneralopinedthatthetenderofT.D.C.didnotconformto thespecifications ofthetenderandonthataccountrecommended 20 therevocation oftheaward (Appendix ΙΓtotheopposition). A while later,on 11/7/86, itwas decided torevoke thetender and seek "new financial tenders".Inthemeantime, theapplicantshad challenged before theCourtthe awardofthetendertoT.D.C.Be­ fore referring tothatactionandits outcome,we mayappropriate- 25 ly completethepicturebyreferring togovernment actionon the matter.Itwas decided torefrain from pressing forth with the ten­ derprocedure.On 15/1/87 theMinisterial committeereferred the mattertotheMinistry ofCommerceandIndustry,with aviewto a reassessment ofgovernment actionrespecting thestudy ofthe 30 touristdevelopmentofPaphos. Meantime,theapplicants hadchallenged,asearliermentioned, theawardofthetendertoT.D.C.:andarecourse wasfiledon19/ 5/86 forthereviewofthedecision. On 13/3/87thedecisionwas annulled for similar reasons tothose for which thetender to 35 T.D.C.hadbeen revoked. 454 3 C.L.R. Tekne v. The Republic Pikis J. Itisthecaseoftheapplicantsthatrespondentsfailed toobliterate the consequences of the annulled tender award and in so acting failed inthedischargeof thedutiescaston theAdministration by para. 5 of article 146of the Constitution, binding the Adminis5 tration toactive'compliance withjudgmentsorordersof acourtof revisionaljurisdiction. Their failure, on the other hand, to complete the tender process by awarding the tender toone of theremaining three approved tenderers,constituted another actionable omission inextricably connected with the first omission; and we 10 wereinvitedtodeclareboth asimproperomissionsthatought not tohavehappenedorbecountenanced. Fortherespondentsitwassubmittedthatthedecision toaward thetender toT.D.C. had been removed infact atatimeprior toits annulment by aCourt. By itsexpunction the Administration had 15 freed itself quo ante,that is,the stateof affairs that existed prior to thedefective decision. Hence nocharge can be levied against the Administration for inaction in the face of thedecision of the Court, voiding the award of the tender toT.D.C. With regard to thealleged failure of the Administration totakefurther steps for 20 the award of the tender to one of the remaining three qualified parties, the complaint of the applicants is not, counsel argued, justiciable intheabsenceof apositiveduty cast by Statute to act. TheAdministration could actastheydeemedappropriate, includingre-examination of thewholeissueof thetourist development 25 ofPaphosreflected inthedecision of 15/1/86;adecision thatremained, ascounsel pointed out, unchallenged as such. The first leg of the complaint of the applicants isfounded on thepremisethatpara.5of article 146of theConstitution confers a remedy upon a disgruntled party,reviewable under the provi301 sions of article 146.1 of the Constitution. A similar view of the effect of para. 5 of article 146wastaken by the Court in Nissiotou v.Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1483;see, also recent decision of the Court, Chenas v.Republic

(1988)3 C.L.R. 241;On appeal, however, namely, in Republic v. Nissiotou

(1985)3 35 C.L.R. 1335,theCourt declared: 455 Pikis J. Teknev.TheRepublic

(1988)"Inouropinion only para.4of article 146of the Constitution provides about the remedies to be granted in a recourse under such article; and para.5of article 146does not provide for aseparateoranadditionalremedy,butcanonlybeinvoked and applied in relation to an application for punishment for 5 contemptof Court underarticle 150oftheConstitution (Seep. 1350lines 13-19)." The matter was made clearer still in a subsequent passage of thejudgmentof theCourt,whereitwasproclaimed that, "Under article 150of theConstitution the Supreme Consti- 10 tutional Court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt of itself; and, of course, one form of contempt is non-compliance withitsjudgments (seep. 1351,lines 15-18). Inevitable,wemustconclude thattheallegedomission deriving from breach of the provisions of para. 5 article 146 is non 15 justiciable and cannot bemadethesubject ofreview underpara.1 of article 146 of the Constitution. Moreover, the defective decision was,it seems,eradicated, as well asits after effects, by therevocationof thedefective tender. Theotheromission concerning theactionof theAdministration 20 subsequently totherevocation ofthe defective act is,again,non justiciable.The Administration wasnot bound toproceed andimplementthedecision tomakeachoiceamongthetenderersfor the feasibility studyof thetouristpotentialofPaphos.Onlywherethe law casts a positive duty to actis an omission reviewable in the 25 context of article 146of theConstitution. Before the completion of the administrative processbythecommunication ofadecision, the Administration has an unfettered discretion to change its course. (SeeStassinopoulos -Lawof Administrative Acts, 1951 ed. p. 366).Before that stage isreached, administrative action is 30 regarded asan internum of theAdministration. (SeeKyriacopoulos Greek Administrative Law, 4th Ed., Vol B, pp. 396 - 397. The caselaw onthe subject wasreviewed bytheFull Benchofthe Supreme Court in Zachariades v. Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1193, a case in which the principles mentioned above were re- 35 ferred towith approval. In the light of the above, therecourse is dismissed. Let there be noorder astocosts. A.r Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 40