(1988)1988April16 [A.LOIZOUP.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION TASMITRADINGCO.LTD., Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS, 2.THEMINISTRYOFHEALTH, 3.THETENDERSBOARD,THROUGHITSCHAIRMAN, Respondents. (CasesNo.689/86). Generalprinciplesofadministrativelaw-—Goodadministration—Tenders— Twoconflictingopinionsplacedbeforethe TenderBoard—TenderBoard hearingexclusivelyandrelyingonthosewhosupportedtheoneofthetwo opinions—Suchacourserunscontrarytothenotionandnormsofgoodadministration. 5 Reasoning of an administrativeact—Tenders—Two conflicting opinions placedbeforetheTenderBoard—Failuretogivereasonsfor rejectingthe oneofthetwoopinions—Asthematerialinthefileareconflicting, thevacuuminthereasoningcannotbesupplemented. ThefactsofthiscaseappearintheJudgmentoftheCourt. 1* Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: loannou v.TheRepublic,
(1976)3C.L.R.431; 782 3 C.L.R. . Tasmi Trading Co.v. Republic • Kyprianou (No. 2) v. TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R:187; • Medcon Constructionv. TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R. 535. Recourse. . * - ι Λ • ' ;.- · 'r. • ·' •' • · . · > • _ ' - " Recourse against thedecision of therespondentTender Board to accept thetenderof the interested party tothatof the applicant in respect of an." Image Intensifier Complete with Camera and T.V.,Monitor:' ,· .:: · ....... . - · · . ' . • \ A . · • • · . * . · '• · • ; . . A.S.Angelides, for.the-applicant... . ,. ; '••·.• . '/ •••' ·• ..· vy.V · " ' '' ' N. Char.alambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic,for there• · sporidents. ,, · . •• Λ.. ,-·.'.• ! c . - :· Μ.Georghiou,for theinterested party. ..: 15 '• ..'.' · ' ;* .'• - ":v. , *!'.".:. .·-. <"' ;*"")'•* -\ '-, ;•: •'• ': .· : ' .-., -C ·;•': ';.;»>,·. • ·. • Ί. : " •· '·• : Cur.adv.vult. , .- ·' " . ' • „ • * / " '; Following the subrhission<of the quotations to.the Ministry of Health.-thematterwas referred to(a)Dr..Gosteas, Senior-Medical Physicist andDr.P.-Peratitis.(Senior Radiologist), and· .: 25 · A. LOIZOU P. read the following judgment. On April 9, 1986, theMinistry of Health invited quotations for the supply of an "ImageIntensifier Completewiih'Camera ahd.T.V. Monitor". Among the firms that.submitted>quotations wereithe applicant Company andPapaetis Medical Co. Ltd. : .>·•. iv. . · " - ' ' ' ,V. 20 " . ,«. (b)TheDepartmentof Electrical andMechanical Services, ; . '·.ι\· ii':·.• •·*-,r »<* > -v?V' ι'-'of ' ; .-•..''* · >·^' <·;:' , !.Both'theaboveofficials of theMinistry,of Healthrecommend ed the tender Of.Messrs Papaetis.Medical Co.,Ltd., (tojbe re ferred tohereinafter as "theinterested party'.').TheDepartmentof Electrical and Mechanical Services in its report dated 26th May, 1986, stated that the tender of the interested party could not be recommended ''because all theioffered image intensifier systems 783 A.Loizou P. Tasmi Trading Co.v.Republic
(1988)areofasinglefieldtypeanddonotsatisfy therequired specificationswhich specifically stated thatrequired imageintensifier is needed toreplace the existing SiemensCigantos SIRESKOP2, Duplex25/15." Regarding the tender of theapplicants the said report stated 5 thatitwas"withinspecification andcould berecommended". TheDepartmentalTenderBoardoftheMinistryofHealthavingconsidered thereportsofitstwoofficials andtheabovereport oftheDirectoroftheElectricalandMechanicalServices"aswell asthewrittenclarification receivedfromMessrs.PapaetisMedi- 10 cal Co.,Ltd.,that theoffered ImageIntensifier isa3-fieldand alsohasanautomaticdosecontrolwhichwillbeinterfaced with theSiemensgenerator,decidedtorecommendtotheMainTender Boardthattheawardbemadetotheinterestedparty. TheMainTender Boardreferred thematterfor consideration 15 bytheTendersTechnicalCommittee whichdecided bymajority thatthetenderbeawardedtotheapplicantCompany.Therelevant reportofthetechnicalCommitteedated7thAugust 1986,reads: "Onthe2ndAugust, 1986theTechnical Committeeexaminedthequotationssubmittedanddecidedbyamajority of3to 20 2 torecommend award in favour of Messrs TASNITRADINGCOLTD.,asproposed by theDepartment of EMS,because it is the cheapest quotation within specifications. It should benotedthattheTechnical Committeeconsideredthe system offered by Messrs Papaetis, to be outside specifica- 25 tions,becausein theiroriginalquotation it wasstated thatit wasofthesinglefieldtype.Atalaterstagealetterdated2nd July, 1986wasreceivedfrom MessrsPapaetisinwhichitwas stated that the system wasofa 3 -fieldtype. In view of the fact thatthis letter wasreceived after theclosingdateof the ^ quotation,theTechnicalCommitteecouldnottakeitintoconsideration. Furthermore,takingintoconsideration theattachedletterof 784 k3C.L.R. 5 TasmiTrading Co.v.Republic A.LoizouP. * Dr.Costeasinwhichitisstatedthattheautomaticdosecontrol facility isessential,it isrecommended toincrease theprice quoted by MessrsTASMIby SF7,210 toinclude theabove facility. Thispricealso includesan 'image inversion'facility worth SF620.-. Mr.A.Pittas and Mr. A.Lambrianou disagreed with the majority, andrecommendedawardinfavourofMessrsPapae- tis. Theirreasonsfordisagreeingwiththemajority are recordedbelow: 10 15 TheoriginaltendersubmittedbyMessrs Papaetisiswithin specifications,becauseitwasnotclearthatwewereaskingfor atwo-field system.Theclarification bythetendererafter the closingdate,maketheiroffer moreattractiveandidenticalwith therecommended tender which is more expensive by three thousand pounds.'". Thematterwasthenplacedbefore the.MainTenderBoardat itsmeetingof-the2ndAugust 1986.·Presentatthemeetingofthe MainTenderBoard wereacertainMr.Pittasand the aforesaid Dr. Costeas. Noneof those twoofficials weremembersof the 20 TenderBoard.Mr.Pittaswasamemberof theaboveTechnical Committeewhowasintheminorityandhegavethereasonsof hisdisagreementwiththemajority.Dr.Costeas,through notexpressly»spokeinfavourofthetenderoftheinterestedparty.Regardingthetenderoftheapplicantshesaid thatthereare differ25 ences therein because the model described in the.tender is different fromthemodelreferredtointheaccompanyingleaflets. Thereafter;the,minutes,oftjhe'Tender Boardreadasfollows: 30 "TherearedoubtsregardingthetenderofPapaetis(theinterestedparty),sinceatthesametimeitrefersto single-field machineandthree-field aswellasregardingthetenderofTasmi (the applicants) because itreferstotwodifferent models (9428and9428E.)!* 785 Λ. LoizouP. Tasmi Trading Co. v. Republic
(1988)When thematter was puttothevote thefivemembers of the MainTenderBoardexpressed thefollowingopinion: "G.Tsielepis: Tothecheaper- Papaetis. G.Kontolemis:- Tothe cheaper- Papaetis. K.Lambrinos: - Tothecheaper- Papaetis-since thereare 5 ambiguities inboth tendersandsince theyoffer thesamema chinery. O.Georghiou:- Tothecheaper- Papaetis - for thereasons invoked by Mr.Lambrinos andmoreover because the machin ery is urgently required. A. Constantinou: By whatIheard,Iwas persuaded that the tenderof Papaetisis within specifications andIvotein favour of its award tothisfirm." TheChairmanof theBoard said: "Ireservemydecision in or dertoclarify certainmatterswiththe technicians". After themeeting andon 1stSeptember, 1986, the Chairman statedthefollowing: "By studying thesecondlowesttender- thatof applicants-1 became certain thatit has anambiguity regarding themodel sincetheoneanalyzed inthetender(TH9428), isdifferent than theonereferred toin theaccompanying leaflets (TH9428E). I have no doubt thatthetwo models aredifferent. Itis notabso lutely clearwhich of thetwomodelsheoffers andwe are inter ested intheelectronic (TH9428E).Itis afact thatthistender 25 hasdisadvantages. Forthisreasonthoughthereis acontradic tion andambiguity inthelowesttendertoo,Iseenoreasonto purchase themoreexpensive sincebothtenderscontainambi guities. Inviewof thisI accepttherecommendationof theMin istry of HealthandIvotelikeallthemembers of theBoard for 30 theaward of thetendertoMessrs PapaetisMedicalCo.»Ltd." 786 10 3 C.L.R. 5 ,Q ™ Tasini Trading Co. v. Republic A. Loizou P. Jt isclear from theaforequoted extracts from theminutesofthe MainTenderBoard thatwhat led thefivemembers of theBoardexcluding thePresident - decide infavour of thetenderof the in terested party - was theexistence of ambiguities inboth tenders. And itis alsoclear thatinreaching thisconclusion theyreliedon theviewsof thoseofficials - Costeas andPittas- who had already expressedthemselves in favour of theaward of thetender to the interested party. The Chairman of theBoard, on theotherhand, whoreservedhis decision inordertoclarify certain matters with thetechnicians,-and we are nottold who are thetechnicians he consulted - adopted thesame lineof approach as thatof the other members of the Board which had been formulated -as already said- as aresult of what Costeas andPittas said.Therefore itcan beinferred thattheChairman toorelied ontheviewsof officials who hadalready expressedthemselves infavour of theaward of thetendertotheinterested party. We are thusfaced with a situa tion whereby theMainTender Board had before it (a) two con-. flicting opinions;(b)Inreaching itsdecision itrelied exclusively and heard theviews of theofficials who formulated one'of the two opinions and, (c)has given noreasons for rejecting oneof thetwo opinions. What is then theeffect of this situation? InConclusions from theJurisprudence of theGreekCouncilof Stateundertheheading "Reasoning ContrarytotheContentsof theFile"we read: :_,.;'•· 2 5 ™ ,ν 35 - ' ' . • . . -.-. . •-•ν .... - • - ·. -J "Ελλείπουσα αιτιολογία δεν δύναται να συμπληρωθή εκσυγκρουόμενων προςάλληλαστοιχείων του φακέλλου: 377, 464
(45), 295
(54),·-'διότι εν τη περιπτώσει ταύτη, η αναπλήρωσιςτηςαιτιολογίαςυπότουακυρωτικού ενέχει ουσιαστικήνστάθμισινμήεπιτρεπτήν:267
(45). Ούτωπ.χ. ^αναιτιολόγητοςτυγχάνειαπόφασιςεκδοθείσαενόψει'δύο :; αντιθέτων γνωμοδοτήσεων αρμοδίως συνταχθείσών, μη μνημονεύουσατονλόγον τηςαπορρίψεωςτηςμιαςεκ τού-^ * των: 1391
(48).Εξαντιθέτουόμως,εκρίθηπλήρωςητιολο• γημένη υπουργική απόφασις δεχόμενη τάς απόψειςτης< μειοψηφίας γνωμοδοτικής επιτροπής^εφ'όσον ενπροοι-' μίωτηςαποφάσεώς-γίνεταιμνείατηςενλόγωγνωμοδοτή787 A. Loizou P. Tasmi Trading Co. v. Republic
(1988)σεως,ήτις αποτελείστοιχείονπροςσχηματισμόντηςου σιαστικής επί του θέματοςκρίσεως του Υπουργού: 541
(54). AndinEnglish itreads: "Lacking reasoning cannotbesupplementedfrom conflict- 5 ing toeachotherelementsinthefile:377,464
(45),295
(54), because insuch acase thesupplementing of thereasoning by theAnnulling Courtamountstoevaluation of themeritswhich is notpermissible: 267
(45).Soit is withoutreasoning a deci sion issued in the light of two conflicting opinionsprepared io competently which doesnotmakereference tothegroundof rejecting oneof thetwo. 1391
(48). Onthecontrary, however, a ministerial decision was found as fully reasoned,whenac cepting theviews of theminority of a committeegivingan opinion,asinthepreambletothedecision there wasreference 15 of thesaidopinion,which constitutedanelementfor the for mationofthesubstantivejudgmentof theMinister:541
(54)." Theaboveapproach- reasoning contrarytotheadministrative records - has been consistently adoptedby thecase law of this Court (seeIoannouv.TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R.431). 2 Inviewof theabove statementof thelaw thesubjudicedeci sion is notreasoned becauseitwas reachedwhilsttwo conflicting opinionswereinexistence andtherewas failure torecordtherea sons for rejecting oneof such opinions(vide Conclusions from theJurisprudenceof theGreekCouncilof Statesupra). 25 The sub decision must be annulledfor anotherreason.As al ready saidtheMain TenderBoardheardonly - andreliedon- the viewsof thoseofficials whohadalreadyexpressedthemselvesin favour of theaward of the tendertotheinterestedparty andhas failed tohearandconsidertheviewsof theside- theE.M.S.and 30 themajority of theTechnicalCommittee-whowereinfavour of the award of the tenderto theapplicants and who stated thatit was theonly tenderthatwas within specifications. Such anap788 0 3 C.L.R. 5 Tasmi Trading Co. v. Republic A. Loizou P. proach by theBoard runs,·in myopinion,contrary toallnorms andnotionsof good administration under whichacollectiveorganhastoact (SeeKyprianou (No. 2)v.TheRepublic
(1975)3 C.L.R. 187andMedcon Construction v.TheRepublic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 535.). ... .···-.'· Foralltheabovereasonsthesubjudicedecision isannulled, butinthecircumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderasto costs. 789