The court ruled that the Minister's failure to decide on an appeal for reconsideration was ultra vires, while the Energy Commission acted within its jurisdiction in revoking the Certificate of Competency.

[1] The Applicant is an individual who was at the material time the holder of a Certificate of Competency issued under the Electricity Regulations, 1994 ('ER') and thus, a competent person under the ER. He was then employed as a 'High Tension Chargeman' by one Global Facilities Management Sdn Bhd ('GFM') which was awarded a contract to carry out electrical maintenance works at the Johor Bahru Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Complex ('CIQ'). GFM appointed a contractor to carry out the maintenance works. As a result of an electrical accident at the CIQ complex, an employee of the contractor passed away in the course of the maintenance works on 10 March 2012.

[2] Following the above accident, the Energy Commission ('EC') vide letter dated 11 March 2013 revoked absolutely the Applicant's Certificate of Competency with effect from 4 March 2013 acting under subregulation 59(8), ER. Pursuant to subregulation 59(9), ER, the Applicant vide letter dated 19 March 2013, being aggrieved by the decision of the EC, applied to the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water ('the Minister') for re-consideration of the matter. However, vide letter dated 10 April 2013, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Ministry purportedly confirmed the decision of the EC without any reference to the Minister's decision on the application. A further application for re-consideration was made vide letter dated 24 May 2013 to the new Minister after the recent General Election but no reply was received till to date. Subsequent letters from the Applicant's solicitors seeking a decision on the Applicant's application did not elicit any response. Hence, this application for judicial review basically for an order of mandamus.

[3] In this application the Applicant prayed for, inter alia, the following reliefs:

1) Satu perintah mandamus terhadap Menteri bagi Kementerian Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air, Malaysia untuk memberikan satu keputusan ke atas rayuan atau permohonan untuk pertimbangan semula, sepertimana yang dituntut dalam surat-surat peguamcara Pemohon yang bertarikh 13 August 2013 dan 27 August 2013, terhadap tindakan dan/atau keputusan Suruhanjaya Tenaga yang membatalkan secara mutlak Sijil Perakuan Kekompetenan Pemohon;

2) Satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan tindakan dan/atau keputusan Kementerian Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air, Malaysia melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 April 2013 yang mengesahkan keputusan Suruhanjaya Tenaga atas pembatalan secara mutlak Sijil Perakuan Kekompetenan Pemohon;

3) Satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan tindakan dan/atau keputusan Kementerian Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air, Malaysia melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 April 2013 yang mengesahkan keputusan Suruhanjaya Tenaga atas pembatalan secara mutlak Sijil Perakuan Kekompetenan Pemohon;

4) Satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan tindakan dan/atau keputusan Suruhanjaya Tenaga atas pembatalan secara mutlak Sijil Perakuan kekompetenan Pemohon melalui satu surat bertarikh 11 March 2013; dan

5) Gantirugi khas dan gantirugi am oleh Kerajaan Malaysia bagi kerugian kepada Pemohon yang disebabkan oleh keputusan serta tindakan Menteri bagi Kementerian Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air, Malaysia dan/atau Suruhanjaya Tenaga tersebut di atas.".

[4] Upon hearing both parties and considering their submissions, I upheld the contention of the Applicant that the Minister had failed to make a decision on the Applicant's application for reconsideration of the decision of the EC pursuant to Regulation 59(9), ER. The failure to do so was ultra-vires sub-regulations (9) and (10) of Regulation 59 which required the Minister to make the decision in the exercise of his discretionary powers. The letter dat