The First Respondent's decision to cease the renewal of pool betting licenses was illegal and unconstitutional, violating the Federal Constitution's provisions regarding gambling jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Mahazan Mat Taib J:

A. Introduction

[1] Under the Order of this Court dated 6 July 2023, these six (6) applications for judicial review ("suits") were heard together before this Court. Leave to commence judicial review was later allowed by this Court on 17 October 2023.

[2] The suits relate to:

(a) the decision of the First and Second Respondent to not renew and/or issue business premises licence to the Applicants who run pool betting businesses in Kedah; and

(b) the act of the Third and Fourth Respondents who upon the First and Second Respondent's direction, refused to renew and/or issue business premises licenses to the Applicants who run pool betting businesses in Kedah.

[3] The prayers the Applicants seek in these six (6) suits are as follows:

(a) A declaration that the First Respondent had acted illegally and/or irrationally in:

(i) Deciding pursuant to the EXCO's decision on 8 December 2021 ("First Respondent's Decision") to cease the renewal of premises licenses for pool betting in the State of Kedah effective from 1 January 2023; and/or

(ii) Causing the Municipal Councils to issue the notice and/or letters ("Municipal Letters") to inform the Applicants that their respective premises licenses for pool betting will cease to be renewed effective from 1 January 2023.

(b) A declaration that the First Respondent's Decision is ultra vires to the Federal Constitution and/or unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with and in breach of, inter alia, arts 8, 73, 74, 75, Eighth Schedule and Item 4(l) and List I of the Ninth Schedule and are therefore null and void;

(c) An order for certiorari to move this Honourable Court to quash the First Respondent's decision;

(d) An order for mandamus directing the First Respondent to forthwith direct all of the local authorities in the state of Kedah to renew all applications for gambling premises licenses for the year 2023 and onwards;

(e) An order for damages for losses suffered by the Applicants to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar/Senior Assistant Registrar and thereafter to be paid by the First Respondent to the Applicants; and/or

(f) Any other orders or reliefs as deemed necessary and/or just and/or appropriate to be given by this Honourable Court.

[4] Upon hearing the application, this Court has decided that judicial review ought to be granted on the grounds of illegality and irrationality, for the following reasons:

(a) On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court may interfere on the grounds of illegality and irrationality if the First Respondent's Decision is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution and in any manner irrational;

(b) The First Respondent's Decision to cease the renewal of premise licence for gambling is inconsistent with art 80 reading together with art 74 and Item 4(l) of the Federal List of the Federal Constitution.

The matter in issue had been extended to the matter of local authority banning betting and lotteries under the subject matter of premise licence for gambling. This would then cause apparent conflict or overlap between the entry of Item 4 of the State List and the entry of Item 4(l) of the Federal List, where the Court should attempt to reconcile them by adopting a harmonious construction.

Undertaking the exercise of harmonious construction, it may only allow the matter of local authority in relation to the premise licence for gambling, but not to the extent of banning betting and lotteries. Otherwise, it would be including matter to override or render meaningless the entry in Item 4(l) of the Federal List.

As a result, the matter of local authority to ban betting and lotteries under the subject matter of premise licence for gambling has no rational connection to Item 4 of the State List, instead, it has the effect of overriding and rendering meaningless the entry of betting and lotteries in Item 4(l) of the Federal List.

(c) The Court is dutybound to interfere as the First Respondent's Decision is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, where