Judicial review is inadmissible under the ouster clause of the Immigration Act regarding travel bans.

[1] In the Originating Summons (Encl 1), the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:

(i) an order of Certiorari to quash the travel ban imposed by the respondents against the applicant;

(ii) a declaration that the travel ban imposed on the applicant is in breach of art 5(1), art 8 and/or art 9 of the Federal Constitution and is therefore null, void and unconstitutional;

(iii) a declaration that the respondents have no power to impose the travel ban and had acted beyond their jurisdiction;

(iv) a declaration that the respondents have no unfettered discretion in imposing the travel ban;

(v) a declaration that the respondents cannot act under s 59 and s 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ("Act 155") to deny the right to natural justice as this contravenes art 160 read with art 4 of the Federal Constitution;

(vi) a declaration that s 59 of the Immigration Act 1959/63 which excludes a right to be heard and s 59A which excludes judicial review, is ultra vires the Federal Constitution;

(vii) an order or mandamus to compel the respondent to allow the applicant to travel abroad with no restriction;

(viii) an order of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from making any decision or direction to blacklist the applicant from travelling abroad; and

(ix) alternatively, an order of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from making any decision or direction to stop the applicant from travelling abroad without giving any reasons and allow the applicant the right to be heard.

[2] The grounds of the application are:

(i) that the decision is against the fundamental rights of the applicant as guaranteed by Arts 5(1), 8 and 9 of the Federal Constitution;

(ii) that the decision was made without jurisdiction as no reasons was given to the applicant;

(iii) that the applicant has a legitimate expectation to travel abroad;

(iv) that the respondents had breached the principles of natural justice and the established principles of administrative law when the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made; and

(v) that the decision was an abuse of discretion, unreasonable and against procedural justice.

[3] On 13 November 2017, the applicant filed an application (encl 12) seeking an order from this court to refer the following constitutional questions to the Federal court under s 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (""):

(i) Whether the decision in Government of Malaysia v. Loh Wai Kong , is null and void and of no effect as having been decided without jurisdiction and therefore is not in accordance with art 121 of the Federal Constitution read with s 67 of the CJA 1964 as it stood in 1979 when the aforesaid decision was made;

(ii) whether s 59 of the Immigration Act 1959 (revised 1975) violates art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor , ;

(iii) Whether s 59 of the Immigration Act 1959 (revised 1975) violates art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution in that it impedes access to justice guaranteed by that article; and

(iv) Whether the decision in Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v. Sugumar Balakrishnan , is unconstitutional in that it was decided in violation of the provisions of art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, in particular, by following the decision in Government of Malaysia v. Loh Wai Kong , and in denying to an applicant affected by a decision made under the Immigration Act 1959 (revised 1975), access to justice which right is guaranteed by art 5(1).

[4] The ground of the application is i