Raus Sharif J:

This is an application by City Growth Sdn Bhd and Azam dan Azan Sdn Bhd (the applicants), for leave to commence proceedings under O. 53 r. 3 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC). Basically, the applicants are seeking for an order ofcertiorari to quash the order dated 5 July 2004 made by the Deputy Public Prosecutor and served on Hong Leong Bank Berhad (the Hong Leong Order) and EON Bank Berhad (the EON Bank Order) (collectively referred to as the said orders). The said orders purport to effect a seizure of, inter alia, movable property in the banking accounts of the applicants pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Anti Money Laundering Act 2000 (AMLA).

There are 3 other related matters involving the Hong Leong Order. There are:

(i) Kuala Lumpur High Court Judicial Review Application No. R1-25-151-2004 filed by Dynasty Domain Sdn Bhd against the Government of Malaysia (the Dynasty Domain Application);

(ii) Kuala Lumpur High Court Judicial Review Application No. R2-25-147-2004 filed by Prestigious Autoworld Sdn Bhd against the Government of Malaysia (the Prestigious Autoworld Application); and

(iii) Kuala Lumpur High Court No. R2-25-147-2004 filed by Luar Kota Development Sdn Bhd against the Government of Malaysia (the Luar Kota Application).

By an order of court given on 21 February 2005, the application herein and Prestigious Autoworld Application were ordered to be transferred and heard together with Dynasty Domain Application and the Luar Kota Application.

The facts leading to the four applications are these. On 26 March 2004, one Tee Yam was arrested by the police and detained pursuant to s. 3(1) of the Emergency (Crime Prevention and Public Safety) Ordinance 1969. While he was under police detection, the police on or about 5 April 2004 served an order under s. 44(1) of AMLA on Tee Yam (the Tee Yam

s. 44 order). Subsequently on or about 14 April 2004 Tee Yam's wife, Chia Mee Sim, was also served with a similar order under s. 44(1) of AMLA.

The police then relied on the existence of Tee Yam s. 44 order to freeze the banking and financial accounts of companies linked to Tee Yam, which includes the applicants herein, Dynasty Domain Sdn Bhd, Prestigious Autoworld Sdn Bhd and Luar Kota Sdn Bhd.

By operation of law, the Tee Yam s. 44 order lapsed on 4 July 2004. However on 5 July 2004, the day after the Tee Yam s. 44 order lapsed, the Deputy Public Prosecutor issued and served the Hong Leong Order and EON Bank Order pursuant to s. 50(1) of AMLA to the applicants herein. The Hong Leong Order was also served on Dynasty Domain Sdn Bhd, Prestigious Autoworld Sdn Bhd and Luar Kota Sdn Bhd.

Hence, these companies filed their application for leave for judicial review. Subsequently, the applications were served on Attorney General Chambers pursuant to O. 53 r. 3(3) of the RHC. When the applications came up for hearing, Senior Federal Counsel Dato' Abdul Rahim bin Uda (Puan Azizah bte Haji Nawawi with her) appeared for the Attorney General. He raised several preliminary objections. His objections were:

(i) The Deputy Public Prosecutor, in exercising the power of the Public Prosecutor was merely performing a statutory function and did not make a decision;

(ii) That the decision of the Deputy Public Prosecutor was not a final determination of the issue at hand;

(iii) That the said orders were issued in the exercises of a non decision making duty;

(iv) That the revision of the said orders would be against public policy; and

(v) That the present proceedings are an abuse of process of the court.

Learned counsel for all the applicants contended that the said orders of the Deputy Public Prosecutor under s. 50(1) of AMLA is amendable to judicial review because:

(i) The Deputy Public Prosecutor was performing a public duty by enforcing the provision of AMLA;

(ii) The source of that the Deputy Public Prosecutor power is statutory, ie, AMLA; and

(iii) The Deputy Public Prosecutor in exercising the powers conferred by AMLA is unde