JUDGMENT

Faiza Tamby Chik J:

[1] This case has arisen as a result of a decision of the Board of Engineers, Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as the Board) pursuant to a hearing on 9 September 1999 under s 15(2) of the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Engineers Act 1967) where in the Board found the Plaintiff guilty of 4 of the 5 charges. The Board had via their letter dated 9 October 2000 ordered the cancellation of the Plaintiff's registration as a Professional Engineer with the Board effective from 9 October 2000. The Plaintiff was at all material times, a Professional Engineer registered with the Board and had practiced under the style and name of PKKL Partners Sdn Bhd. The Plaintiff had received a show cause letter dated 11 November 98 from the Board informing them pursuant to a complaint it had allegedly received from Majlis Perbandaran Shah Alam (MPSA) regarding the collapse of the Linkway Bridge at Matsushita Television Co Sdn Bhd, Shah Alam and following investigation conducted by the Board, the Board had decided to hold a hearing under s 15(2) of the Engineers Act 1967. The Tribunal hearing took place on the 9 August 1999 in spite of various preliminary objections on inter alia matters of jurisdiction and ultra vires. The Applicant had on 1 October 1999 sent in its written submissions which included the preliminary objections made to the Board on the hearing of 9 August 1999. the Applicant had specifically pointed out that contrary to the charge sheet and the insistence by the Chairman of the Tribunal it had been established at the hearing that MPSA did not complain at all to the Board of Engineers. The Board vide it's letter dated 15 May 2000 pointed out that it was their position that they had powers under inter alias 4(1), (f) and 15 of the Engineers Act 1967 to carry out investigation into professional conduct of engineers to ensure compliance with the Engineers Act 1967 even in the absence of complaints. The Applicant then further submitted on this issue and reminded the Board that the entire hearing had proceeded on the basis that was a complainant and that there must be due observation of procedural fairness. The Applicant emphasized that it was not open to the Board to interpret the Engineers Act 1967 as they had, the effect of which is to contravene the constitution which by arts 8(1) and 5(1) of the Constitution guarantees that there must be due observation of professional fairness. The Board on 9 October 2000 issued an order pursuant to s 15(1) canceling the Plaintiff's registration as a professional engineer with the Board of Engineers and the Applicant may within 21 days of the said notification appeal to the Board against the Board's decision. However, the Applicant was subsequently informed by the Board vide a letter dated 10 October 2000 that the Board had sent the Applicant's deregistration for gazetting on the 13 July 1999, some three months before the order was made. The Applicant being dissatisfied with the order now seeks an order of certiorari to quash the order issued by the Board of Engineers vide their letter dated 9 October 2000 and for an order of mandamus that the Board reinstates the Applicant as a professional engineer with the Board and for damages under the new O 53 of the Rules of the High 1980.

[2] Full particulars of the Applicant's case are set out in the statement pursuant to O 53 r 3(2) Rules of the High (Amendment) 2000. The Applicant's case in brief is set out as follows:

(a) That the Board of Engineers, Malaysia had acted ultra vires by issuing the order cancelling the registration of the Applicant on the 9 October 2000 when it was improperly and/or not properly constituted, and/or was not empowered to do so in accordance with the Engineers Act, 1967;

(b) That the proceedings before the Board of Engineers were contrary to the principles of natural justice and/or procedural fairness and arts 8(1) and 5(1) of the Federal Constitution owing to inter