Back
2021 MarsdenLR 2624
HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
SEGAMAT DISTRICT COUNCIL – Respondent
[Judicial Review No: JB-25-04-08-2017]
Local Government Act empowers local authorities to assess rates on designated holdings, including transmission towers, affirming judicial review focuses on decision-making processes rather than merits.
Headnote:(A) Local Government Act 1976 – Sections 39, 130, 141, 144, 163 – Assessment rates imposed by the Segamat District Council on electricity transmission towers – The court upheld the decision of the local authority to impose rates, determining that the transmission towers fall under the definition of structures assessable under the Act – The council's power to amend valuation lists and impose rates was affirmed. (Paras 54-112)
(B) Judicial Review – Scope and Jurisdiction – The court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself, specifically addressing ultra vires actions and procedural fairness. (Paras 19-20, 36)
Facts of the case: The applicant, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, challenged the Segamat District Council's decision to impose assessment rates on transmission towers located on private land, arguing a lack of jurisdiction and proprietary interest.
Findings of Court: The court found that the Segamat District Council acted within its jurisdiction and properly imposed assessment rates under the Local Government Act 1976.
Issues: Whether the Segamat District Council had the authority to impose assessment rates on the transmission towers, and whether the applicant had any rights to challenge this decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the local government has the authority to impose rates on all holdings within its jurisdiction, including transmission towers, as defined under the Local Government Act 1976, reaffirming the importance of procedural adherence in judicial review contexts.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for Judicial Review pursuant to O 53 r 2, of the decision of the Full Board Meeting of the Segamat District Council (in Malay it is known as "Majlis Daerah Segamat) ("SDC"), on 26 April 2017 to re-affirm the assessment rates imposed by the Assessment Rates Committee Meeting of the SDC on 14 March 2017 and 14 April 2017.
[2] The reliefs sought for are as follows:
i. A Writ of Certiorari against the decision of the Assessment Rates Committee dated 14 March 2017 and 12 April 2017 which was affirmed by the Full Board Meeting of the Respondent on 26 April 2017 which dismissed the appeal of the Applicant and which decided to affirm the Assessment Rates on the Respondent for all the Electricity Transmission Towers which are found on the Electric Transmission Tower Reserves which was referred by the Respondent as Transmission cables of RSS MP. 131 1/2 Gemas Bahru, Transmission Cables of RSS M.P. 38 PMU Jementah, Transmission Cables of Paya Lebar Kampung Paya Dalam, Transmission Cables of Paya Dalam to PMU Segamat- Kuantan Highway, Transmission Cables of Gelang Cincin/Jabi, Transmission of MP 111 1/4, PMU Bukit Siput and Transmission Cables of RSS MP 106 1/4 Jalan Segamat/Labis ("the electricity transmission towers") as contained in the Respondent's letter dated 16 May 2017 be quashed.
ii. The cost of this application and all incidental costs be Cost in the Cause.
iii. Other reliefs that the Court deems fit.
[3] The basis of this application for Judicial Review are as follows:
a. The applicant has no proprietary interest in the holdings of the said properties.
b. The Application is unable to ascertain which of the transmission towers that are charged with assessment rates because the Respondent failed to give the exact location or particulars of each and every property where the transmission towers are found.
c. The rights of the Applicants is only that of wayleave rights pursuant to the Electricity Supply Act 1990 .
d. The decision of the Respondent to impose Assessment Rates on the Applicant for the Electricity Transmission Towers belonging to the Applicants for the transmission of electricity is ultra vires the Local Government Act 1976 .
e. The decision of the Respondent to impose Assessment Rates on the Applicant for the Electricity Transmission Towers belonging to the Applicants for the transmission of electricity exceeds the (ultra vires) the jurisdiction of the Respondent and in this instant case, the Respondent acted without any jurisdiction.
f. The Respondent has committed an error of law in making a decision that exceeds its jurisdiction.
g. The decision of the Respondent has violated the Rule of Fairness.
h. The decision of the Respondent is oppressive and is based on unreasonable consideration and was made wantonly and callously.
[4] The Cause Papers are as follows:
i. Notice of Application pursuant to Order 53 Rules of 2012 (Enclosure 1).
ii. Statement of facts pursuant to Order 53 r 3(2) Rules of 2012 (Enclosure 2)
iii. Affidavit-in-support (Enclosure 3).
iv. Affidavit-in-opposition (Enclosure 10).
v. Affidavit-in-reply (Enclosure 12)
[5] There was an application for Judicial Review by the same party against the 1st decision of SDC and it was heard by his Lordship, Justice Datuk Wira Ahmad Nasfy. A preliminary objection was raised by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the ground that the application should be by way of an appeal and not by way of a judicial review. His Lordship allowed the preliminary objection and there was an appeal against the decision to the Court of Appeal and afterwards before the Federal Court whereby the Federal Court ruled that the correct mode is judicial review and that the Court is not prevented from hearing or deciding based on an application vide a judicial review. I shall not deal with the procedural matters anymore as the Federal Court has dealt with it very decidedly.
The Background Facts
[6] Vide a letter dated 13 November 2014,
