Back
2011 MarsdenLR 2714
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA – Appellant
Versus
DR MICHEAL JEYAKUMAR DEVARAJ – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01-215-2011]
Judicial review of administrative decisions involving policy considerations and management prerogative is non-reviewable and not justiciable.
Headnote:(A) Rules of the High Court 1980 - Order 53 - Federal Constitution - Article 8(1) - Judicial review - Appeal against grant of leave for judicial review concerning the authority of public officials to disburse funds under the Federal Budget - Determination of whether the reliefs sought were justiciable - Court examined necessary legal preconditions for issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto and Orders of Mandamus. (Paras 11-19, 21-33)
(B) The court found that the Writ of Quo Warranto was inappropriate as the respondent failed to challenge the qualifications of public officials directly, and the relief sought was outside its scope. (Paras 18 and 20)
(C) The court additionally held that the application for Mandamus did not meet statutory requirements and involved non-reviewable policy considerations, thus not justiciable. (Paras 32-36)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a Member of Parliament, sought funds for various projects from the Federal Allocation via the Director General and the Director but was met with refusals and directives instead.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in granting leave for judicial review. The appeal was allowed, and the order dismissed.
Issues: Whether the Writ of Quo Warranto was the correct relief; whether the application for Mandamus complied with statutory prerequisites; and if the reliefs were justiciable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the reliefs sought were related to the management prerogative and involved policy considerations that were non-reviewable.
Result: Appeal allowed; the order of the High Court was set aside and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
[1] This is the Attorney General's appeal against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who had on 25 February 2011 allowed the respondent's application by way of Notice of Motion ("the Notice of Motion") for leave for judicial review under O 53 of the Rules of the High 1980 ("O 53").
Notice of Motion
[2] In essence, the Notice of Motion sought the following reliefs:
(1) A Writ of Quo Warranto against the appellants, viz the Director General of the Implementation and Coordination Unit of the Prime Minister's Department ("the DG"), the Director of the Perak State Development Office ("the Director") and the Government of Malaysia, to show cause and give information as to their authority to exercise, vest and/or delegate the discretion to approve and disburse funds from the Federal Consolidated Funds which are allocated in the Federal Budget 2010 and any annual Federal Budget to the Prime Minister's Department for all parliamentary constituencies ("the Allocation") and to explain their respective roles and relationship in relation to one another;
(2) Orders of Mandamus to compel the appellants to specify information in respect of the disbursement of the Allocation, in particular for the Sungai Siput Parliamentary Constituency ("Sungai Siput");
(3) Declarations that, in accordance with art 8(1) of the Federal Constitution (art 8(1)), the Allocation must be provided and made available to all Members of Parliament equally regardless of political affiliations and that the Director's decision in the letter dated 12 October 2010 is a breach of art 8(1) and therefore unconstitutional and void;
(4) An Order of Certiorari to quash the Director's decision in the letter dated 12 October 2010 and consequently an Order of Mandamus to compel the DG and/or the Director to grant the respondent's application vide letter dated 9 July 2010 for funds from the Allocation for Sungai Siput for the year 2010 ("the 2010 Application"); and
(5) Damages and costs.
Factual Background
[3] A narrative of the factual background serves to put this appeal in proper perspective. There is a time-honoured saying that when the facts are clearly and accurately established, the law will take care of itself.
[4] The respondent is the Member of Parliament for Sungai Siput.
[5] The respondent made an application for funds under the Allocation in 2010.
[6] The Director vide letter dated 26 July 2010 informed the respondent that:
(1) As of 25 July 2010, 56 projects valued at RM1. 72 million had been approved for Sungai Siput, nine of which valued at RM1. 15 million were being implemented, while 47 projects valued at RM561,865. 15 had been completed;
(2) The respondent's application for RM50,000 for victims of natural disasters, to be deposited in the Land Office, cannot be considered because there was no allocation for that purpose. It was suggested that the respondent submit the list of victims concerned together with police report for consideration, so that there would be no overlapping with contributions from other Government agencies; and
(3) Regarding the respondent's proposal for funding the relevant Parent-Teachers' Associations ("PTAs") and other bodies, the respondent was requested to submit a list of the names of the PTAs and particulars of bank accounts for consideration.
[7]Vide letter dated 24 August 2010, the respondent provided the details requested by the Director and sought the director's clarification about the approved projects.
[8] Subsequently, the respondent, vide letter dated 8 October 2010, informed the Director that if by 15 October 2010, he (the respondent) did not receive any reply to his letter dated 24 August 2010, he would assume that his 2010 Application was rejected.
[9] The Director vide letter dated 12 October 2010 informed the respondent that:
(1) As of 25 July 2010, a total of 56 projects valued at RM1. 72 million had been approved for Sungai Siput. The amount covers contributions, supplies and projects;
(2) The contributions include grants to organiz
