The court affirmed that the 'Tatacara' serves a legitimate administrative purpose, enhancing document verification and protecting public interest against fraud, without exceeding statutory authority.

Background Facts

[1] The Respondents in July year 2022, proposed to introduce a new requirement (hereinafter referred to as "proposed requirement") in the guideline known as "Tatacara Pengunaan Akuan Penyerahan Dokumen Pentadbiran Tanah Johor" (hereafter referred to as "Tatacara") pertaining to the presentation of instruments of dealings and other documents for registration at the registry offices of the Respondents in the state of Johore.

[2] The applicant having sight and having perused this "proposed requirement" in the said "Tatacara" (marked as exhibit "MB-1" to affidavit in support encl 2) became concerned of its legality and effect, that moved the filing of encl 1. This Court acknowledged the statutory duty under the Legal Profession Act 1976 of the applicant and to quote some examples of these statutory duties as stated in the said affidavit, are as follows:

a) where requested so to do, to express its view on matters affecting legislation and the administration and practice of the law in Malaysia;

b) to represent, protect and assist members of the legal profession in Malaysia and to promote in any proper manner the interest of the legal profession in Malaysia;

c) to protect and assist the public in all matters touching ancillary or incidental to the law.

[3] The applicant, and this Court recognizing the applicants' interest as above who is acting not only for the members of the Bar Council but also the public, quoted the highlighted concerns as deposed by the applicant in the affidavit to be as follows:

"the Proposed Requirement was questionable in terms of (inter alia) its legality, objective, procedural irregularity, rationality, reasonableness, desirability and/or proportionality".

[4] These concerns being elaborated further in the subsequent paragraphs of the applicant's affidavit, to mean that a solicitor who represents documents (on behalf of his or her client) at the registries or offices of the Respondents would be required to sign a "Surat Akuan" and "Akuan Pemohon" which contained unreasonably broad and unqualified statements. It was also said that the "Surat Akuan" is also self-serving to the Respondents.

[5] The Respondents on the other hand responded that the "Tatacara" is merely administrative and on the same stand in the Respondents' line of duty, was drafted for the purposes of upgrading ongoing practices that are already long in place to ensure effectiveness and to serve as a notice to those submitting or making the surrender of the documents in verifying and acknowledging the 'truth' and 'legitimacy' of the contents of the said documents handed in (the affidavit of the Respondent in Bahasa Malaysia para 34.9 'dokumen yang diserahkan adalah benar dan tulen').

[6] This moved the applicant to file an application for judicial review under O 53 Rules of Court 2012 in encl 1 with leave granted (Respondents having no objection to the leave application), seeking for the following reliefs:

a) A declaration that the said Tatacara (containing therein a "Surat Akuan" and a "Akuan Pemohon" is unlawful, invalid, null and void, and/or ultra vires the National Land Code 1965;

b) An order of certiorari be issued to quash and set aside the said Tatacara (including in particular the "Surat Akuan" and the "Akuan Pemohon" contained therein);

c) An order that the Respondents s