On 2.10.2001, the appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Merinyu Kanan Galian Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan made on 4.9.2001. The said appeal was filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 107 of the Mining Enactment (FMS Cap 147) which allows any party aggrieved by any decree, order or decision made or given by a Senior Inspector of Mines to appeal within 30 days from the date of the decree, order or decision.

The notice of appeal filed by the appellant has cited three parties as the respondent namely, Rimba Raya Sdn. Bhd., the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Perak and the Kerajaan Negeri Perak. The appeal is against the decision of the Senior Inspector of Mines cancelling the licence of the appellant. At the early

1

stage of the hearing of the matter, the first respondent, Rimba Raya Sdn. Bhd. was taken out leaving behind only the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Perak and Kerajaan Negeri Perak as the respondents in this appeal.

Briefly, the facts of the case states that the appellant was issued with a Lesen Perlombongan Hidraulik Bil. KR 2/2001 on 6.8.2001 with a validity period from 3.7.2001 to 2.7.2002. By a letter dated 27.8.2001, the appellant was informed by the Senior Inspector of Mines that the said land has been allocated for a mixed development project by the State Government and the licence issued to the appellant earlier was cancelled. The appellant was told to cease mining operation in the area and was further informed that an appeal could be forwarded to the State Government over the matter. By another letter dated 4.9.2001 the appellant was informed by the Senior Inspector of Mines that there occurs an error in the earlier letter dated 27.8.2001 in respect of the reference to the licence which should refer to Lesen Hidraulik KR 6/2001 instead by Lesen Hidraulik KR 6/200. It was in consequence of this letter that the appellant filed the notice of appeal to the High Court appealing against the decision of the Senior Inspector of Mines cancelling the said licence. After filing the notice of appeal, the appellant filed a Rekod Rayuan in Lampiran 8. At the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Senior Federal Counsel contending that the second and third respondents should not be named as the respondents in the appeal and that the proper

2

party to be the respondent should be the Senior Inspector of Mines, for it is the decision of the Senior Inspector of Mines that is being appealed against.

In the course of hearing the submissions of both counsels for the appellant and the respondent, an issue as to the mode of bringing this appeal before the High Court was also argued and reference was made to the case of Lee Soo Chuan v. Lai Ah Yan & Anor (1972) 2 MLJ 33 as an authority for the proposition than an appeal against the decision of the Senior Inspector of Mines must be brought in the same way as a civil appeal from a Sessions Court or Magistrates Court in accordance with the procedure laid down in the subordinate Court Rules and the Rules of the High Court. I am certainly bound the said decision of the Federal Court and rule that the appellant is competent to lodge this appeal and has adopted the right approach and mode of bringing this appeal to this Court by filing the notice of appeal and the subsequent documents following it. The issue raised in the preliminary objection by the second and third respondents is whether there is a valid and proper notice of appeal after taking in to consideration that a wrong party has been cited in the notice of appeal.

It is trite that an appeal does not exist without the filing of a notice of appeal and that the same be served on the relevant parties. The issue before this court now is whether the notice of appeal filed by the appellant in the

3

present case is a good notice. On a defective notice of appeal, the Supreme Court in the case of Lee Lan v. Lim Yoon Loy and 2 others [1991] 1 CLJ 251 (Rep) [1991] 3 CLJ 2393 held th