This is an ex parte application made by way of notice of motion for leave pursuant to Order 53 rule 1(2) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the second respondent in approving the film publicity material bearing the title "Happy Bigamist" and a certain statement in the advertisement of the film which conveyed the message "two wives in one house policy feasible" and which was published, displayed and advertised by the first respondent to promote their showing of the film. The applicant also prays for an injunction to restrain the first respondent, their servants or agents from publishing, displaying or in any way utilizing the said film publicity material. The third respondent was made a party because under section 12A of the Cinematograph Films (Censorship) Act 1952 (Act 35) he was responsible in endorsing the approval given by the second respondent. Furthermore under section 19C of the Act, the third respondent is empowered to give directions to the second respondent and others who are responsible for carrying out their respective duties conferred by the Act. The applicant has also prayed for an extension of time to make the application for leave since the approval of the second respondent was purported to have been given at diverse dates from April 24 to May 5, 1987 and the application was not filed in the court until July 8, 1987 by which time the statutory period of six weeks as provided in Order 53 rule 1A had already lapsed. The application is supported by a statement and an affidavit (enclosure 1) in compliance with Order 53 rule 1(2) and notice of the application for leave was duly given to the Attorney General's Chambers on June 24, 1987. A supplementary affidavit (enclosure 5) was filed on July 7, 1987 by the applicant but apparently it was not served on the Attorney General until July 8, 1987 when the motion came up for hearing. However, the learned Senior Federal Counsel who appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Attorney General did not make an issue regarding the short service of the supplementary affidavit and at any rate the supplementary affidavit is really not very material since the deponent of the said affidavit (and that is the applicant himself) merely used it to show this court that he had made a complaint to the Biro Pengaduan Awam and he was informed by letter dated July 1, 1987 which was received by the applicant on July 6, 1987 that the complaint of the applicant could not be entertained. Hence, he has no other venue to air his grievances except the court.

As stated earlier, on the date of hearing of the motion that is on July 8, 1987, a Senior Federal Counsel of the Attorney General appeared on his behalf. At the outset, the Senior Federal Counsel indicated to this court that he was instructed to oppose the application on the ground that the applicant had no locus standi to make the application. The applicant, who appeared on his own behalf, retorted by challenging the "standing" of the Senior Federal Counsel in his appearance at the hearing to oppose the application since it was made ex parte. It is not amusing that both counsel sought to challenge each other's "standing" to appear before this court as it would appear to me that generally speaking counsel seems to think that the easiest way to escape from a litigious process is to raise the issue of locus standi even if there is a real difficult point of law that calls for judicial decision. Be that as it may, I cannot accede to the objection of the applicant for the simple reason that an ex parte application merely means that such an application is permitted to be made by one party in the absence of the other. It does not preclude any person who has an interest or who may be adversely affected by the decision of the court in the matter which is to be litigated from appearing to raise any legitimate objection against or for that matter any legitimate ground in support o