Buttrose J:

This is an application for an Order of Prohibition directed to:

(a) the Minister for Home Affairs prohibiting him from taking any further step in pursuance of the Notice of the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs of 19 December 1960, to deprive one Chua Ho Ann (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') of his citizenship under the provisions of s. 22(3) of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957 (No 35 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'); and

(b) the Committee of Inquiry constituted under the provisions of s. 22 of the Ordinance prohibiting it from proceeding with the Inquiry into the proposal to deprive the applicant of his citizenship.

Section 22 so far as it is material to the present proceedings is as follows:-

(1) A citizen of Singapore who is a citizen by registration or by naturalization shall cease to be such a citizen if he is deprived of his citizenship by an order of the Minister made in accordance with the provisions of this section. - (The applicant is a citizen by registration).

(3) The Minister may, by order, deprive any such citizen of his citizenship if he is satisfied that that citizen -

. ............................

(d) has at any time after registration been engaged ......... in any criminal activities which are prejudicial to the interests of public safety, peace or good order.

(5) The Minister shall not deprive a person of citizenship under this section unless he is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that that person should continue to be a citizen of Singapore.

(6) Before making an order under this section, the Minister shall give the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground on which the order is proposed to be made and of his right to have the case referred to a committee of inquiry under this section.

(7) If any person to whom such notice is given applies within such time as may be prescribed to have the case referred to a committee of inquiry, the Minister shall, and in any other case may, refer the case to a committee of inquiry consisting of a Chairman, who shall be a person qualified to be appointed a Judge, and two other members appointed by the Minister in that behalf.

(8) The committee of inquiry shall, on such reference, hold an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed and submit a report to the Minister and the Minister shall have regard to such report in making an order under this section.

The first matter which arises to be considered is whether the order of prohibition will issue either to the Minister who is entrusted by the Legislature with wide and unlimited discretion with regard to the deprivation of citizenship or to the committee of inquiry making a report to him thereon. Is the Minister or the committee acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity? If they are then prohibition will lie. If on the other hand they are acting in an administrative or executive capacity prohibition is inappropriate and the Court will not interfere.

A great many authorities were cited to me in argument by Mr. Marshall who appeared on behalf of the applicant and I have considered them at some length, but it would not, in my view, be of assistance to examine them in this judgment. The foundation of the Court's jurisdiction by way of prohibition has been fully canvassed in recent years and individual instances are not really of very much help except to illustrate the general principle and the modern approach to it of extending the order to statutory bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers affecting the rights of private persons.

The principle itself is conveniently stated by Atkin LJ in Rex v. Electricity Commissioners [1924] 1 KB 171 at p. 205 "...... the operation of the writs has extended to control the proceedings of bodies which do not claim to be, and would not be recognized as Courts of Justice. Wherever any body of persons have legal authority to