JUDGMENT

Abdul Aziz Rahim J:

[1] The applicant applied for order of certiorari to quash the decision made by the 1st respondent on 22 October 2007 refusing to issue a motor vehicle licence for vehicle No. QKP1085 belonging to the applicant. The decision was communicated to the applicant vide the 1st respondent's letter dated 22 October 2007.

[2] The applicant also applied for mandamus order to direct the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent to issue to the applicant upon payment of the prescribed fee by the applicant, a motor vehicle licence for the vehicle QKP1085.

[3] The applicant further claims for damages calculated at the rate of RM2,800 per month commencing from November 2007 till the month when the respondents issue the motor vehicle licence for the said vehicle.

[4] In his affidavit affirmed on 16 November 2007 the applicant deposed that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle QKP1085 as shown in exh. L1. He further deposed that sometime in December 2006 while he was driving another vehicle bearing registration No. KG2098Q, he was issued with notice or summons under s. 53(1) of the Road Transport Rules 2003 which charged him for carrying dangerous load on 5 December 2007. The notice is exh. L2.

[5] In his affidavit, the applicant denies committing the offence stated in the notice exh. L2. The applicant alleged that the notice was issued to him because he refused to bribe the policeman who had stopped him that day. The applicant also alleged in his affidavit that when he was stopped, the policeman merely asked him 'Apa macam sekarang?' and did not even mention about the load that the vehicle KG2098Q was carrying; and after a few minutes after the applicant did not make any offer of bribe, the policeman wrote him the summons.

[6] The applicant then wrote a letter exh. L3 dated 22 January 2007 to Ketua Polis Daerah Kota Samarahan requesting for the summons to be cancelled. In the letter, the applicant stated that the summons was in respect of future offence and should be cancelled and that if he did not hear from the Ketua Polis Daerah within seven days from the date of the letter exh. L3 he would deem that the summons had been cancelled.

[7] However, sometime in October 2007 the applicant went to apply for a motor vehicle licence for his vehicle No. QKP1085 at Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Kuching and he was informed that he was not allowed to pay for the motor vehicle licence and no licence would be issued for the vehicle QKP1085 because he has been blacklisted with unsettled summons in respect of the vehicle KG2098Q.

[8] The applicant then sought the help of his local Member of Parliament for Bandar Kuching who then wrote a letter exh. L4 dated 19 November 2007 to the 1st respondent demanding that the applicant be allowed to pay for the motor vehicle licence for his car QKP1085. However the 1st respondent responded by letter exh. L5 dated 22 October 2007 informing the applicant that he had to settle the summons first before he could allow to pay for, and be issued with, a motor vehicle licence for his car QKP1085.

[9] The applicant advanced three main grounds for this application. The first ground is that the respondents' refusal to issue the motor vehicle licence is unlawful and against the fundamental principle of law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Secondly to compel the applicant into admitting guilty of the alleged offence and paying the compound without giving the applicant a hearing in the court of law is a breach of natural justice. Thirdly, the respondents were being irrational and unreasonable in relying on a notice of summons issued in respect of a future offence as a ground to disallow the applicant to pay the prescribed fee for the motor vehicle licence for the said vehicle and then to refuse to issue the motor vehicle licence applied for.

[10] The applicant contended that as a result of the wrongful act of the respondents, the applicant suffered loss in that the applicant was and still not able t