Rohana Yusuf J:

[1]There are two applications for judicial review. Suit No R2–25–466 of 2010 is an application by Gan Boon Aun, who was the chief executive officer (CEO) of Transmile Group Bhd. The applicants in Suit R2–25–467 of 2010, Khiudin bin Mohd and Shukri Abdul Tawab were directors and members of the Audit Committee of the board of directors of the same company. Both applications arise from the same set of facts and are heard together. The applications for judicial review are made of the respondent's decision in imposing penalties including public reprimands and fines on all the applicants as directors of Transmile Group Bhd ('Transmile'). Transmile was a company listed on Bursa's official list. There were allegations of breaches of listing requirements by Transmile resulting on the punishment meted out by the listing Committee on the applicants. On appeal the Appeals Committee upheld the decision of the listing Committee.

[2]The applicants now seek the following orders, pursuant to O 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980:

(a)an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and to quash the decision of the Appeals Committee of Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd dated 6 September 2010 which disallowed the applicant's appeal to the Appeals Committee and upheld the decision of the listing Committee dated 23 February 2010;

(b)an order of mandamus to compel the Appeals Comittee of Bursa to allow the applicant's appeal;

(c)in the alternative to para (a) above, an order that the applicants appeals be remitted to Bursa to be heard/deliberated upon de novo by a different Appeals Committee on the merits and in accordance with law; and

(d)an order that enforcement of the decision of the Appeals Committee of Bursa dated 6 September 2010 be stayed until the final disposal of the application herein.

[3]These two applications are premised on the following grounds:

(a)that Bursa erred in law and acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in the Appeals Committee's decision when it proceeded to deliberated on the breaches against the applicants despite the ongoing criminal proceedings against them which could cause a real risk of prejudice;

(b)that Bursa had breached the rules of natural justice in failing to accord the applicants, oral submissions/representations;

(c)that Bursa had breached the rules of natural justice in failing to disclose the members of the Appeals Committee, thus depriving the applicants the opportunity to determine if there was potential bias;

(d)that Bursa had demonstrated bias by singling out the applicants to be penalised for the delay and deviation breaches;

(e)that Bursa had failed to take into account and/or fully appreciate relevant facts in relation to the delay;

(f)that Bursa had failed to fully appreciate that the applicants could not have known of the seriousness of the audit issue on 15 February 2007 because D&T had not at that time completed its review of certain transactions and therefore could not themselves have known of the seriousness of the audit issues then;

(g)that Bursa failed to consider sufficiently or at all the applicants position in Transmile and that the applicants had at all times exercised reasonable care and diligence in the circumstances of the case;

(h)that Bursa failed to take into account and/or fully appreciate relevant facts in relation to the deviation issue;

(i)that Bursa erred in law, acted in excess of or without jurisdiction when after arriving at the erroneous and perverse decision, Bursa went on to impose penalties that are arbitrary, unjust and without regards to precedent; and

(j)that the AC had therefore arrived at a decision that was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case and which was so perverse or devoid of plausible justification that no reasonable person/body of persons could have arrived at the same decision.

[4]There are two alleged breaches by the applicants. Firstly, there was a delay in the submissions of accounts and secondly there was deviation between the financia