Visu Sinnadurai J:

2 August 1997. The following judgment was delivered by Justice Dato' Dr Visu Sinnadurai.

In this application, the applicants sought leave to apply for an order for certiorari under O. 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980.

The applicants initially sought leave to quash the "approval of the proposed Damansara-Puchong highway interchange configuration at Jalan Damansara linking Bandar Utama by the first respondent" (the Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia) - see encl. (1).

However, by a subsequent application (encl. 10), the applicant sought to amend the main application by seeking the following relief:

An order of certiorari directed to the first respondent to quash the decision dated 16 November 1996 communicated by the first respondent on 19 November 1996 and/or the approval by the first respondent to approve the interchange configuration of the proposed Damansara-Puchong highway at Jalan Damansara linking it to Bandar Utama.

As there appeared to be some urgency on the matter, especially since the construction of the highway had already commenced, the application for leave was heard on an inter parte basis.

The Facts

The first applicant, Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd is the developer of a commercial and residential development known as 'Bandar Utama', whilst the second applicant, Bandar Utama City Corporation Sdn Bhd, is the landowner of all the commercial properties and the undeveloped residential units of Bandar Utama.

The first respondent, Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia, a body established under the Highway Authority (Incorporated) Act 1980 , is the authority responsible for the supervision and execution of the design, construction and maintenance of highways under the said Act.

The second respondent, Lingkaran Trans Kota Sdn Bhd, is a construction company who was granted the concession for the construction of the privatisation of the Damansara-Puchong highway. This proposed highway, involves the stretch of Jalan Damansara passing through certain junctions at Bandar Utama.

The first applicant, being unhappy with certain of the proposed highway's interchange configuration, especially those near Bandar Utama, had appealed to the first respondent to reconsider their decision, and had also submitted certain counter proposals, based on findings of a traffic consultant.

According to the applicant's traffic consultant, the existing three junctions at Bandar Utama (with two right exits to Jalan Damansara) were able to satisfy 99% of the peak traffic, whilst the proposed highway interchange configuration at Junction B (providing only one right access) would adversely affect the traffic flow by reducing it to 47%.

By a letter dated 16 November 1996, the first respondent informed the applicants that the Technical Committee of the Privatisation of Damansara- Puchong highway had considered the applicant's objections and had rejected the applicants' appeal and counter proposals.

The applicants then instituted the present action. The applicants argue that as landowners and developers of Bandar Utama, they are aggrieved parties as the continued development of Bandar Utama will be adversely affected by the proposed interchange configuration. As the registered proprietors of the commercial properties within Bandar Utama, the second applicant claimed that they would be affected by any negative impact on the traffic flow by the respondents' highway interchange configuration at Junction B.

Applicants' Arguments

The applicants' argue that the proposed highway interchange configuration will have a negative impact on the traffic dispersal from Bandar Utama, and that the first respondent had failed to take into account, relevant matters such as capacity of the existing roads in designing the proposed configuration.

It was also argued by the applicants that the first respondent in communicating to the applicants the decision to reject the applicants' appeal by their letter dated 16 November 1996 had not given any re