Back
2011 MarsdenLR 460
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PENDAFTAR PERTUBUHAN MALAYSIA & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Judicial Review Nos: R2-25-161-2009 & R2-25-163-2009]
The dissolution of a society requires strict adherence to verification procedures mandated by law; any significant procedural violations invalidate the Registrar's decision.
Headnote:(A) Societies Act 1966 - Section 13 - Judicial review - Applicants sought rulings to quash the Registrar's decision dissolving BALKIS for failure to properly verify dissolution according to prescribed procedures - Court found the dissolution process invalid due to absence of a proper agenda, lack of quorum, and erroneous verification procedures. (Paras 5, 20, 28, 30)
(B) Judicial Review - Principles governing discretionary powers - Court emphasizes scrutiny of procedural propriety and merits of decisions, especially in cases of significant consequences, ensuring the exercise of discretion aligns with legal frameworks. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Applications from two groups contesting the dissolution of BALKIS, a society established for welfare purposes, claimed the Registrar failed to verify the dissolution properly. The decision was contested based on procedural impropriety and lack of necessary quorum. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
Court found that the Registrar's failure to properly verify the dissolution rendered it invalid, highlighting irregularities in quorum and meeting procedures, and affirmed the legitimate expectation of one applicant to assume a leadership role in BALKIS. (Paras 32, 50)
Issues: The primary issues involved whether the Registrar followed the correct verification process under the Act and whether the applicants had the necessary locus standi to challenge the decision. (Paras 20-24, 35)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a society's dissolution must comply with legal verification requirements; insufficient procedures adopted invalidated the dissolution decision, reaffirming the principles of fair administrative process as paramount in the exercise of public authority. (Paras 7, 32)
Result: Applications allowed in part for one applicant with the remainder dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review applications consolidation. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. cancellation of balkis registration explained. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. applicant's locus and responsibilities debated. (Para 6 , 36 , 37) |
| 4. contestation of verification process (Para 7) |
| 5. judicial review principles of discretion examined. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. evidence must support claims in judicial review. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. verification process under examination. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. legal grounds for respondent's decisions discussed. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. proper verification and documentation are vital. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. invalidity of improper meeting notices. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 11. lack of quorum leads to invalid resolutions. (Para 28 , 30 , 32) |
| 12. expectations of statutory verification (Para 33) |
| 13. error in law necessitates review of actions. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 14. locus standi of applicants (Para 39) |
| 15. legitimate expectation for applicants' benefits clarified. (Para 46 , 49) |
[1] There are two applications for judicial review in this proceeding. In both applications the respondents are the Registrar of Society. In suit No R-25-161- 2009 the applicants are:
i. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor;
ii. Puan Sri Salbiah Binti Tunut;
iii. Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad; and
iv. Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad.
[2] In suit No R-25-163-2009 the applicants are:
i. Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor;
ii. Worldwide Holdings Berhad;
iii. Selangor Industrial Corporation Sdn Bhd;
iv. Selaman Sdn Bhd;
v. PKNS Infra Berhad; and
vi. PKNS Engineering & Construction Bhd
[3] Both applications are heard together as they sought similar reliefs though the grounds of support differ to a small extent. Leave was granted for judicial review in both applications. Briefly the applicants sought for the following reliefs, which I hereby reproduce below:
i. an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the registrar of society (ROS) dated 11 February 2009 dissolving the Persatuan Badan Amal dan Kebajikan Isteri-Isteri Selangor (BALKIS) and cancelling the registration of BALKIS effective 11 February 2009;
ii. an order of Mandamus directing the respondent to reject the dissolution of BALKIS, to set aside the decision to dissolve BALKIS and cancel its registration, and to reinstate BALKIS;
iii. a declaration that decision of the respondent dated 11 February 2009 dissolving BALKIS and cancelling its registration is illegal, null and void;
iv. jointly or alternatively, a declaration that the decision of the respondent dated 11 February 2009 dissolving BALKIS and cancelling its registration dated 11 February 2009 is illegal, null and void;
Background Facts
[4] The brief facts leading to these applications are these. BALKIS, an acronym for Badan Amal Dan Kebajikan Isteri-Isteri Selangor, was a registered society since 17 May 1985. The membership of BALKIS was made up of wives of the Selangor State Assemblymen and members of parliament. On 8 March 2008 the opposition party became the government of the day. As a result of the change in the State Government of Selangor, BALKIS held an Extraordinary General Meeting on 11 March 2008 and passed a resolution to dissolve itself and transfer its funds to another society known as BAKTI. Thereafter pursuant to s 13 of the Societies Act 1966 (Act 335) the respondent cancelled the registration of BALKIS which took effect on 11 February 2009.
[5] Under s 13 of Act 335, the respondent is empowered to cancel the registration of any society under three main circumstances. Of relevance to these applications is s 13(1)(a) which provides that:
"13(1). Subject subsection to (2), the registrar may, in the following cases, cancel the registration of any society registered under s 7:
(a) upon its dissolution by the society to be verified in such manner as the registrar in accordance with this Act;
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) ... "
By the above provision therefore, the respondent is required to verify a societys dissolution before cancelling its registration.
[6] The applicants contended that the respondent failed to
