The court ruled that an applicant for judicial review must demonstrate locus standi by showing adverse effects from the decision in question, which was not established in this case.

Azizah Nawawi JCA (Majority):

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of learned High Court Judge dated 17 November 2022 in dismissing the appellants' leave application for Judicial Review, to quash, inter alia, the Decision of the 4th Respondent which degazetted part of the Forest Reserve in Bukit Cherakah.

Parties

[2] The 1st appellant is the legal officer for Pertubuhan Pelindung Khazanah Alam ("PEKA"), established in 2010. The 2nd appellant is the legal officer for Persatuan Rimba Komuniti Shah Alam ("SACF"), which was officially formed in March 2016.

[3] The 1st to the 4th respondents are the State Executive Council ("MKN"), the State DG of Forestry, the State DG of PTG and the State Government of Selangor.

[4] The 6th respondent is Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor, the owner of 350 acres of the said area. The said lands consist of (17) Individual Registry Titles which were alienated by the State in December 2016. The 6th respondent has an indefeasible Title to (133) hectares of land alienated by the State of Selangor in December 2016.

[5] The 7th respondent, Restu Mantap Sdn Bhd is the owner of 50 acres in the said area, whilst the 5th respondent is the developer of those lands.

Salient Facts

[6] On 20 November 2000, the MKN made a decision to degazette part of the Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve as a permanent reserve forest and to be alienated to nine (9) companies including:

(i) Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor ("PKNS") (350 acres);

(ii) SAS Estate Sdn Bhd ("SAS Estate") (50 acres);

(iii) Excel Nobel Const Sdn Bhd ("Excel Nobel") (50 acres);

(iv) Permaddun Sdn Bhd ("Permaddun") (50 acres); and

(v) the 7th Respondent, Restu Mantap Sdn Bhd ("Restu") (50 acres).

[7] 150 acres of land alienated to SAS Estate, Excel Nobel and Permaddun had been fully developed into a housing area known as Alam Budiman which comprises, inter alia, residential and commercial buildings, including the Universiti Teknologi MARA, UiTM (Kampus Puncak Perdana), Masjid Puncak Perdana dan Sekolah Kebangsaan Puncak Perdana.

[8] The alienation of 50 acres of land in Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve to the 7th respondent was carried out by the PTG vide its letter dated 30 January 2002. The purpose of the alienation was for "tujuan pembangunan" or the development of residential buildings (including low-cost houses) and commercial buildings. For these purposes, on 11 June 2020, 279 land titles were issued to the 7th respondent.

[9] On 29 April 2011, the National Forestry Act (Adoption) (Amendment) Enactment 2011 introduced the requirement to hold a public inquiry into the degazettement process.

[10] The 6th Respondent is the legal and beneficial owner of (133) hectares of land which was alienated by the State in December 2016 for development purposes, including residential and commercial.

[11] On 5 May 2022, a Gazette Notification was issued pursuant to s 13 of the National Forestry Act 1984 notifying the public of the Decision by the State Government to excise the Forest Reserve of Bukit Cherakah made in November 2000.

[12] Hence the appellants filed the judicial review application seeking the following orders:

(i) That the appellants be given leave for their application to judicially review the issuance of the Gazette Notification (National Gazette No 1645 dated 14 April 2022 [PHNSe/.100-1/9/1 J/d.2 (11): P.U. Se/.(ADV) PS.05/4/5]) by the Executive Council of the State of Selangor on 5 May 2022 which degazetted 406.22 hectares of the Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve (the "Gazette Notification') by way of an order for certiorari for the quashing of the Gazette Notification;

(ii) That the Applicants be given leave for their application to judicially review the 1st and/or 4th Respondents' decision on 20 November 2000 to degazette the Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve (the "1st and/or 4th Respondents' Decision') by way of an order for certiorari as it is irrational for the Respondents to allow for the development of the Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve a deci