Ramly Ali J:

[1] This is an application by the applicant, made ex parte, for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st respondent dated 11 September 2001 in which the 1st respondent had approved the development to the land adjacent to the applicant's land by the 2nd respondent, which involved the building of 2 blocks of 20 storey apartments with 107 units with the density of 285 persons per acre.

[2] The application (encl 1) was made pursuant to O 53 r 3 of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC 1980), which provides:

(1) No application under this Order shall be made unless leave therefor has been granted in accordance with this rule.

(2) An application for leave must be made ex parte to a Judge in Chambers and must be supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought, and by affidavits verifying the facts relied on.

[3] The application for leave together with the statement pursuant to O 53 r 3(a) and the applicant's affidavit verifying the statement were filed on 25 October 2001. All the papers were served on the AG's chambers on 18 January 2002. On 2 July 2002, the applicant obtained an order for amendment of the statement made by the previous judge (Dato' Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed). The amended statement was filed on 9 July 2002. The affidavit verifying the amended statement was affirmed on 19 August 2002 and filed on 20 August 2002. All these papers were also served on the AG's chambers on 21 August 2002. The applicant has complied with O 53 r 3(3) of RHC 1980 which provides:

(3) The applicant must give notice of the application for leave not later than three days before the hearing date to the Attorney General's Chambers and must at the same time lodge in those Chambers copies of the statement and affidavits.

[4] On the hearing date of the application (25 September 2002) there was no representative from the Attorney General's Chambers.

Brief Facts

[5] The facts of this case are set out in detail in the amended statement filed pursuant to O 53 r 3(2) RHC 1980. Briefly the facts are as follows:

[6] The land adjacent to the applicant's land was to be developed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent applied to the 1st respondent (Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur) for planning permission. The original plan was to develop 2 blocks of 20 storey apartments (181 units) with gymnasium at roof level and 3 levels of car park. Residential density will be increased from 30 persons to 408 persons per acre, on the said land. Notice was given on 26 August 2000 by the 1st respondent in the New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia and also by way of a letter dated 22 August 2000 to the applicant regarding the proposed development. The applicant raised various objections in a letter dated 8 September 2000 and also during a meeting convened by the Pengarah Jabatan Perancang dan Kawalan Bangunan of the 1st respondent on 8 November 2000. The 1st respondent issued a notice dated 11 September 2001 which was received by the applicant on 27 September 2001 where by the 1st respondent informed the applicant that the 1st respondent is approving the development and granting the planning permission but reducing the number of units from 181 to 107 with the density of 285 persons per acre.

[7] The applicant is now seeking leave to apply for inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st respondent dated 11 September 2001.

[8] In seeking leave, the applicant raised the following grounds, namely:

i) that the applicant has locus standi is respect of the application;

ii) that the application is not prima facie frivolous or vexatious;

iii) that the 1st respondent has failed to give any or adequate reason for the said decision;

iv) that the grounds for the application are serious and if unrebutted would result in the applicant succeeding in his application by the notice of motion for certiorari;

v) that there will be an increase in population densi