Zaki Tun Azmi CJ:

[1] I have read through the grounds of judgment of Dato' Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, FCJ in draft. I concur with his grounds and his conclusion.

[2] I would like however to comment on the manner this case has been conducted.

[3] The setting up of a burial ground to any religion is very important and when an issue relating to it is raised, decisions should be made within the shortest possible time. However, in this case before us, this does not seem to be the situation. The neighbouring residents to the proposed Muslim burial ground objected to the approval by the local authority viz Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (respondent 148) to allocate the land for that purpose. They filed an application to challenge that decision of the local authority. Instead of hearing and disposing of the application speedily, it dragged on for the last three years. This was as a result of the appellant, claiming to act for the interest of the Muslims of Selangor, sought to be made a party to the review. When it was refused by the High Court, they chose to appeal to the Court of Appeal and thereafter, to this court. In the meantime, the review at the High Court came to a standstill.

[4] Now, the court is blamed for the delay. The public gets frustrated. In my opinion, the court could perhaps have just gone ahead and made a decision on the application for administrative review. The question of whether the appellant should be made a party can be decided and appealed together if necessary. These delays have caused unnecessary anguish over the people for whom the appellant is supposed to be acting for.

[5] Courts should be more diligent in dealing with such cases. Parties expect speedy disposal of reviews. That is why applications for review of administrative decisions are provided by way of certiorari or mandamus instead of by way of a writ. The law provides for a simple way of disposing these cases. Instead of a speedy disposal of a review application, this case has taken as long as it would in a hearing of a writ. Delays such as this can also cause a hold up in the implementation of national development and losses to the people such as the developers when there is an application for review of planning permissions granted by public authorities.

[6] In Kuala Lumpur, the Appellate and Special Powers Division or Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas (better known as RKK) are speedily disposing of such review cases. I hope the other High Courts would also take note of this.

Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ:

Background

[7] By an order dated 17 August 2006 given by the Shah Alam High Court, the respondents 1 to 147, who are owners of residential units in Kota Kemuning and Kemuning Greenville, Shah Alam ("the housing estate") were given leave under O. 53 r. 3 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC") to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the respondent 148, that is Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam ("MBSA") dated 19 April 2006 and 14 May 2006 respectively. MBSA under its planning laws had decided to allocate an approximately 13.84 acres of land in the housing estate as a Muslim burial ground ("the burial ground"). The respondent 149, Hicom Gamuda Development Sdn Bhd ("Gamuda") is the developer for the housing project in the said housing estate. Gamuda is named as a party by respondents 1 to 147 with a prayer for a claim of damages against it. The respondents 150 and 151 are Muslim individuals who are also residing in the housing estate. They were allowed by the Shah Alam High Court to intervene in the judicial review proceedings on behalf of themselves as well as other 632 Muslim residents in the housing estate.

[8] The appellant, Majlis Agama Islam Selangor ("MAIS") however was refused leave to intervene in the judicial review proceedings by the Shah Alam High Court on 14 March 2008. The learned judge of the High Court held that O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) of the RHC is applicable to judicial review proceedings but went on to hold that MAIS has failed