Richard Malanjum JC:

The Application

Pursuant to leave granted to the applicant on 8 April 1987 the applicant by a Notice of Motion dated 20 April 1987 applied for orders as follows:

(a) an Order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court for the purpose of it being quashed the decision of the second respondent made on 11 March 1987 whereby the second respondent (acting as servant or agent of the first and third respondent) revoked the applicant's Forest Timber Licence No. T/3070; (b) an Order of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents and each of them from granting any forest timber licence and/or permit over the licensed area delineated in the Forest Timber Licence No. T/3070 except in accordance with clause 16 of the said Forest Timber Licence No. T/3070; and (c) costs of and occasioned by the motion and the application for leave be paid by the respondents to the applicant to be taxed.

At the commencement of the hearing learned Counsel for the applicant applied to withdraw the application for Order of Prohibition (b) above with the learned State Attorney-General not objecting.

Application for Order of Prohibition as in (b) above was accordingly struck out.

The Grounds:

The grounds upon which the Order of Certiorari is sought are as provided in paragraph 3 of the statement dated 30 March 1987 filed pursuant to O. 53 r. (1)(2) of the Rules of the High Court 1980. They are as follows:

(a) that the revocation by the second respondent (acting as servant or agent of the first and third respondents) of the applicant's Forest Timber Licence No. T/3070 by letter dated 11 March 1987 is null and void and of no effect as it was made in violation of the rules of natural justice; (b) that the applicant had at all material times a legitimate expectation to be heard before the aforesaid revocation which right was denied to it; (c) that the revocation by the second respondent as aforesaid was made under the dictation of the first respondent or some other authority and is consequently illegal null and void and of no effect as it is contrary to the provisions of the Forests Ordinance (Cap. 126) and/or the terms of the aforesaid Timber Licence No. T/ 3070; (d) the second respondent was at all material times under a duty to act fairly. The revocation by the second respondent as aforesaid is in breach of the said duty. Consequently, the second respondent acted in excess of jurisdiction; (e) that the aforesaid revocation was made without or in excess of jurisdiction in that it is not in accordance with the Forest Ordinance (Cap. 126) and/or the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Forest Timber Licence No. T/3070; (f) that the respondents and each of them are not entitled in law and/or have jurisdiction to issue a licence and/or a permit over and/or to call for and accept a tender for a right to take forest produce from the licensed area comprised in the aforesaid Forest Timber Licence No. T/ 3070 to and/or from any person or body other than Clause 16 of the aforesaid Forest Timber Licence No. T/3070; (g) the discretion conferred upon the second respondent to revoke the said licence is not unfettered. The second respondent exercised the said discretion arbitrarily and improperly when revoking the Applicant's aforesaid licence.

As the application for Order of Prohibition has been withdrawn ground (f) is no longer relevant.

Facts and Events Prior to commencement of Proceeding:

The facts and events that led to the applicant making the application for leave and subsequently the Notice of Motion may be gathered from the affidavit of Ting Sie Ing affirmed on 31 March 1987. They are as follows: (i) the applicant is a private company limited by shares and carried on the business of, inter alia, trading in timber; (ii) on 26 May 1981, the applicant was issued with a Forest Timber Licence No. T/3070 ("the said Licence") by the 2nd respondent in exercise of the power conferred on him by s. 55 of the Forests Ordinance ("the Ordinance") with