Faiza Tamby Chik J:

[2] In order to appreciate this case, I will first set out the background of this case. This case involves an advocate and solicitor and the Legal Profession Disciplinary Board ('DB'), the disciplinary authority for advocates and solicitors created under the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('the LPA'). This body is a public body created by Parliament to provide adjudicatory service, ie in deciding a complaint against an advocate and solicitor which is conducted by way of disciplinary proceedings. The applicant is an advocate and solicitor. The third respondent who was a former client of the applicant had lodged a complaint against the applicant to the DB. I will not go into the merits of this complaint yet at this stage except to state that this complaint does not involve any monetary issue. The second respondent had on an unspecified date constituted an investigating tribunal ('IT') pursuant to s 100 of the LPA against the applicant. The IT had notified the applicant of its intention to conduct a hearing which triggered the applicant to make this application for judicial review to quash the decision of the DB in constituting an IT against him. The applicant had named the Chairman of the DB as the first respondent, The Disciplinary Board as the second respondent, the complainant as the third respondent, the three members of the IT as the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents. As required by the RHC, the applicant had filed an ex parte summons in chambers dated 21 August 2002 for leave. The applicant had given notice of the ex parte application for leave and had lodged copies of the applicant's application to the Attorney General Chambers. The return date was 16 September 2002. On 16 September 2002 at the ex parte hearing, Senior Federal Counsel ('SFC'), Cik Nizam bte Zakaria appeared for the AG. She opposed the applicant's ex parte application for leave. I asked the learned SFC to submit written submission and the application was adjourned to 24 September 2002. Subsequently, the learned SFC had submitted written submission. On 24 September 2002 when this case was called up, Mr Nadkarni of Messrs Lee Hishammuddin placed himself on record for the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents ('the respondents'). I accorded the respondent's counsel a hearing. The respondents' counsel also opposed the applicant's ex parte application for leave and which application I will refer to later. The matter was again adjourned. When this matter came up on 30 January 2003, I indicated to the parties that as this proceeding namely the participation and role of the AG Chambers and counsel for the respondents at the ex parte application for leave stage for an application made for judicial review under O 53 of the RHC raises an important practice point, I would give a written judgment which would serve as a guide for future applications. The matter was adjourned to 27 March 2003. I now give my written judgment.

The applicant must give notice of the application for leave not later than three days before the hearing date to the Attorney General's Chambers and must at the same time lodge in those Chambers copies of the statemen