James Foong JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appellants, on their own, and on behalf of the Malaysian Taekwondo Association (MTA), applied under O 53 r 3(2) of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC) for:

1. leave to apply for an order of certiorari to:

(a) remove a "Show Cause Order" dated 15 April 2005 issued by the respondent and,

(b) quash the order issued by the respondent on 6 May 2005 revoking the registration of MTA;

2. for an interim order staying all "proceedings under O 53 r 3(5) Rules of the High "; and

3. the costs of this application be costs in the cause.

[2] Though O 53 r 3(2) of the RHC requires this application to be made ex partes, I noticed, from the notes of proceedings, that it was instead heard inter partes, with Ms Mary Lim, Senior Federal Counsel, representing and arguing for and on behalf of the respondents.

Background

[3] The facts of this case are as follow: The appellants are the President, Vice Presidents, Secretary and Treasurers respectively of MTA. MTA is the only taekwondo association (out of three in this country) recognized by the Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM) to represent the sport of taekwondo in this country. The constitution of MTA provides for voting right to only 17 of its members. They are: (a) a representative from each of the 13 state taekwondo associations; (b) a representative from each of the taekwondo associations from the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; (c) a representative each from the Malaysian Armed Forces and the Malaysian Universities Sports Council. According to the appellants, this reflects a fair representation of members across the country. Aside from these members who have representative voting rights, there is another category of membership known as associate members. They do not have representative voting rights. These members are from various taekwondo associations across the country with the highest number concentrating in Kuala Lumpur. Due to their lack of representative voting rights, they had, according to the appellants, applied pressure on the respondent to change its constitution to allow them to vote. When the members of MTA resisted, the respondent on 15 April 2005 issued a show cause letter to MTA demanding to know why MTA should not be de-registered under s 20(1)(e) of the Sports Development Act 1997 (SD Act). This section reads:

Revocation or suspension of registration by Commissioner

20(1). The Commissioner may revoke or suspend the registration of a sports body if the Commissioner is satisfied that such sports body:

(e) is hindering the development of the particular sport and it is in the public interest to revoke or suspend its registration.

[4] Then on 6 May 2005, when the respondent refused to accept the explanation provided by MTA in response to the show cause letter, the respondent issued an order to de-register MTA.

[5] MTA could have appealed to the Minister of Sports against the decision of the respondent under s 21(1)(c) of the SD Act which provides:

Any sports body aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner:

in revoking or suspending the registration of such sports body may, within thirty days from the date of the notification of the decision of the Commissioner, appeal to the Minister whose decision thereon shall be final.

[6] And under s 21(2) SD Act:

Before making any decision under subsection (1), the Minister may refer the matter to the Sports Advisory Panel.

[7] Instead of following this process, the appellant elected to file this application in the High Court for judicial review. The reasons proffered by them are:

1. The appeal to the Minister of Sports (the Minister) is not mandatory. Section 21(1)(c) of the SD Act provides that "such sports body may" appeal (emphasis added). The word "may" connotes a choice as compared to the word "shall" which denotes a mandatory act. Thus the appellants have an option to either appeal to Minister or seek an alternative remedy to challenge the decision of the respondent. The latter was preferred.

2. It