JUDGMENT

Narkunavanthy Sundareson J:

(Enclosure 1)

Introduction

[1] Vide encl 1, the applicants (excluding applicant 2) prayed for leave to file for Judicial Review for the following reliefs:

(i) an order of certiorari to quash the respondents' decision alleging that the residents of Kampung Indian Settlement (Settlement) are occupying Government land without permission;

(ii) an order of mandamus to maintain the present plots as is; and

(iii) an order of prohibition to prevent the respondents from asking them to vacate the Settlement and demolishing the existing structures.

[2] After careful consideration of the cause papers and submissions on behalf of the applicants and the Honourable Attorney General Malaysia (AG), this court allowed the AG's objections and dismissed encl 1. The following are the reasons for the decision.

Background Facts

[3] The applicants filed encl 1 on 9 January 2025 to challenge the respondents' allegation that the residents of the Settlement were occupying Government land without permission of the State Authority.

[4] The respondents issued notice dated 10 September 2024 (First Notice) notifying the residents of the Settlement that they had committed an offence under s 425 National Land Code 1965 which made them liable to a fine of RM50,000.00 or a term of imprisonment not less than 5 years or both unless they vacated the Settlement or demolished the structures thereon within 60 days of the notice.

[5] On 13 September 2024, the applicants attended a session with the respondents wherein they were told why they were trespassing on Government land and the need to demolish the structures built thereon.

[6] The respondents then issued another notice dated 14 October 2024 (Second Notice) of the offence and giving the residents until 10 January 2025 to vacate the Settlement.

AG's Objection - Time

[7] The AG objected to encl 1 arguing that the application was filed out of time contrary to O 53 r 3(6) Rules of 2012 (ROC) which reads:

"An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant"

[8] The AG cited several cases wherein this provision was examined including Wong Kin Hoong & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor; [2013] 4 MLJ 161; [2013] 4 CLJ 193; [2013] 4 AMR 211 wherein Raus Sharif PCA (as His Lordship then was) held at p 171:

"The time frame in applying for judicial review prescribed by the Rules was fundamental. It goes to jurisdiction and once the trial judge had rejected the explanation for the delay for extension of time to apply for judicial review, the court no longer has the jurisdiction to hear the application for leave for judicial review. Whether the application has merits or not, is irrelevant."

[9] The AG argued that the date when the grounds of this application first arose was the date of the First Notice. The time to file any challenge to that notice expired on 9 November 2024. The applicants' application which was filed on 9 January 2025 was 30 days outside this period.

[10] Contrary to the applicants' contention that time starts to run from the date of the Second Notice, the AG pointed out that the Second Notice merely gave the residents an extension of time to vacate the Settlement. It is not a new decision.

[11] The applicants did not apply for extension of time and therefore the application was incompetent (Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Alcatel-Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2017] 1 MLJ 563 at 589; [2017] 2 CLJ 1).

[12] The applicants responded that the application was within time because the challenge was mounted on the Second Notice.

[13] In particular the applicants argued that they were not merely challenging the notices to vacate but the entire decision of the respondents alleging them to have occupied the Settlement without permission.

[14] In their submissions the applicants referred to the chronology of events leading