Lau Bee Lan J:

[1] The applicant, Nasioncom Holdings Sdn Bhd, through its ex parte application for judicial review under O 53 of the Rules of the High ("the RHC") dated 27 March 2007 (Encl 1) sought leave for the following reliefs:

(a) for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent, Securities Commission ("SC"), dated 15 February 2007 in imposing a public reprimand ("1st sanction") and to direct the applicant to rectify and re-issue the Applicant's 2005 Financial Statements by excluding from the Group revenue of RM194,984,186, the sum of RM143,109,727 ("2nd sanction").

(b) an interim stay order of the two sanctions which thehas imposed till the final determination of the ex parte application or of the substantive application.

(c) for a declaration that the decision of the respondent dated 15 February 2007 in imposing the two sanctions acted with mala fides and/or abuse of authority and/or did not act with fairness and was unreasonable and/or the respondent was biased and acted in contravention of the basic rights of the applicant.

[2] Broadly, the background facts are as follows. The applicant was listed in 2005 on MESDAQ Market of Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad and has an authorised share capital of RM100,000,000 of which RM80,000,000 is issued and fully paid-up as ordinary shares of RM0.10 sen each.

[3] It is principally an investment holding company and the principal activities of its subsidiaries namely Nasioncom Sdn Bhd and Express Top Up Sdn Bhd (ETU) are wholesale of telephony prepaid cards, retailing of telephony prepaid cards, provision of voice and data services, broadband internet access and information technology solutions to corporations and home users.

[4] In May 2006, the applicant issued its first annual report for the financial year ended 31 December 2005 accompanied by the Financial Statements of the Group and the Company (exh TKS1). After inspection and investigation conducted by the respondent's officers at its premises and various correspondences, the respondent was dissatisfied with the explanation proffered by the applicant with respect to the amounts of revenue of RM104.19 million generated by ETU and RM90.89 million generated by Nasioncom Sdn Bhd for the financial year ended 31 December 2005 which the respondent alleged to be false as per the show cause letter exh. TKS5. The applicant's contention was that they were actual sales and that a significant proportion of the trade receivables were collected by the end of the calendar year 2006 as per applicant's reply letter, exh. TKS6. The respondent imposed the 2 sanctions as per exh. TKS7 (also exh. SC1). It is not disputed that leave to apply for an order of certiorari and declaration was obtained on 18 April 2007. With respect to the application for an interim stay order, the respondent opposed it and hence the subject matter of the hearing before me.

[5] The applicant in urging the Court to grant interim stay principally on the ground that there are special circumstances relied on:

a) The English position of O 53 r 10(a).

b) YAM Tunku Dato' Seri Nadzaruddin Ibni Tuanku Ja'afar v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor, [2003] 5 MLJ 128 .

c) Re Khong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd; Ling Beng Sung v. Khong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd & Ors (No. 2), [1976] 1 MLJ 131 (FC ).

d) Kerajaan Malaysia v. Ekran Bhd, [2006] 2 MLJ 749.

[6] The respondent in urging the Court to refuse the application argued on two grounds:

a) the application for an interim stay as a matter of law is misconceived in that the phrase "stay of proceedings" in O 53 r 3 of the RHC is confined to conduct of proceedings in Court or before a tribunal and not a decision of a statutory body like the respondent where there is no proceeding involved. For support of this proposition, the Privy Council case of Foreign Affairs Trade and Industry v. Vehicles and Supplies Ltd and Anor [1991] 4 All ER 65 and the case Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor, [2002] 2 MLJ 413 (CA) were