A person does not have a guaranteed constitutional right to travel abroad under Malaysian law, and restrictions can be imposed under statutory authorities.

[1] This appeal concerns an order made by the first respondent in which the appellant was barred from leaving the country on 22 July 2015. The facts emerging out of the events culminating in the said order appear sufficiently on the face of the pleadings. These facts, no doubt, are simple, yet it raises constitutional issues of some importance relating to fundamental liberties calling upon us for our determination. To the extent that they are central to the appeal, we would mention that the appellant, a Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara, at the material time, was a holder of a valid Malaysian Passport bearing number A 34010087 with an expiry date of 23 April 2020. On 22 July 2015, the appellant attended at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport 2 to take Air Asia Flight AK 348 at 3.15 pm. bound for Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Whilst at the airport, the appellant alleged, an immigration officer informed him that he had been directed by his superior not to allow the appellant to travel abroad. On 24 July 2015, the appellant, through his solicitors, wrote to the first respondent to confirm the above and to demand for an explanation but he waited in vain for a response.

[2] The appellant consequently, on 19 August 2015, filed for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the respondents pursuant to O 53 rr 2 and 3 of the Rules of 2012 seeking:-

a. a declaration that the order by the first respondent barring the appellant from leaving the country on 22 July 2015 is against the law and thus is invalid and void;

b. an order of certiorari to remove into the Court for the purpose of it being quashed immediately the said decision; and

c. special damages, costs and any further relief as the Court deems appropriate and reasonable.

The application is supported by an affidavit deposed by the appellant on 19 August 2015. The first stage of the judicial review procedure under O 53 r 3(1) of the Rules of 2012 had been complied with when leave was granted by the High Court on 1 October 2015. Thereafter, the respondents filed their affidavit in reply affirmed by the first respondent on 15 January 2016. The hearing of the appellant's substantive application for judicial review at the second stage of the judicial review procedure ended with a dismissal of the said application by the High Court on 27 July 2016. The appeal before us is brought by the appellant against the said High Court's decision in dismissing his application.

[3] We shall now refer to the decision of the learned judge in the Court below which deals with the question whether the appellant has a guaranteed right or legitimate expectation to travel abroad as he is a holder of a valid passport, and the issues relating to the exclusion of right to be heard and jurisdiction of the respondents in issuing the order to bar the appellant from leaving Malaysia. In summary, the learned judge held that the appellant had no constitutional rights to travel overseas and that the travel ban was in accordance with the law. On the appellant's contention that he had legitimate expectation of being able to travel abroad as at all material times he was a holder of a valid Malaysian passport, the learned judge emphasized that the respondents did not promise or represent to the appellant that with a valid passport he had a right to travel abroad. As such, there was no legitimate expectation for the appellant to travel abroad. The learned judge had also dealt with the issue of the exclusion of right to be heard in which Her Ladyship held that by virtue of s 59 of the Immigration Act 1959/63 (Act 155), the appellant was not entitled to such right. It was also submitted for the appellant that the first respondent was bereft of any power under