HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
TESCO STORES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LEMBAGA RAYUAN PULAU PINANG & ORS – Respondent
[Application for Judicial Review No: 25-59-04/ 2012]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal and decisions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. applicant's grounds for judicial review (Para 4) |
[1] The Applicant by this judicial review proceedings sought to quash the decision made on 20 March 2012 by the Appeal Board, Penang (AB) in Appeal No: LR/SP/32/2009 (heard together with another Appeal No, LR/SP/1/2010). Both the said appeals before the AB (established under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (TCPA)) were brought by the 3rd Respondent.
[2] The 3rd Respondent's appeals before the AB were in respect of the following, namely,
(a) a Planning Permission granted to the Applicant; and
(b) an amended Planning Permission granted to one DNP Hartajaya Sdn Bhd (DNP) on 31 December 2009 by the 2nd Respondent who was the local Planning Authority. The Planning Permission and the Amended Planning Permission had been granted despite representations made by the 3rd Respondent as to certain conditions to be imposed as well should such permissions be granted
[3] The 3rd Respondent's appeal was allowed by the AB after having heard the parties The AB had ordered that the drainage requirement or condition to be complied with by both the Applicant and DNP was to be substituted with the requirement that a complete concrete monsoon drain be fully constructed along the drain reserve found at the boundaries of the separate but contiguous properties belonging to the 3rd Respondent, DNP and the Appellant; this was to be in substitution to the originally required construction of a 'half-concrete monsoon drain' at that location.
[4] The Applicant's case before this court was essentially that the AB had committed an error of law and/or had failed to take into account relevant considerations and/or had made an irrational or unreasonable decision when, firstly, AB entertained the 3rd Respondent's appeal and held that the 3rd Respondent was entitled to bring and maintain their Appeal No LR/SP/1/2010 and, secondly, in allowing the said appeal on its merit, in any event. It was also submitted by the Applicant that the AB had exceeded their statutory powers when in ordering a 'whole concrete monsoon drain' or 'full drain' to be constructed the AB was imposing a new condition, which the AB was not empowered to do in law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.