JUDGMENT

Wan Yahya J:

The plaintiff in this case is Koperasi Kasuma (M) Bhd. a co-operative company registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and currently under receivership. The 3rd defendant (State Government), against which only the plaintiff subsequently elected to proceed, is the Government of the State of Selangor.

Sometime in 1981 the State Government granted a lease on a piece of land held under Lot 3269, PT No. 3088, H.S.(M) 5258 in the District of Petaling (the land) to Supreme Corporation. The lease commencing from 7 September 1981, to 6 September 1986, contained an express condition that the land should only be used to build five residential accommodation for the Supreme Corporation staff and not for any other purpose. There was also a further restriction on interest prohibiting the lessee from selling, leasing, charging or transferring the land without the approval of the State Authority.

On 17 September 1985, Supreme Corporation made an application to transfer the lease, which was due to expire in a year's time, to the plaintiff (see Exbt. D8). The application was turned down by the State Government on 8 July 1986, (see P3). The plaintiff then wrote two identical letters, one dated 1 August 1986, addressed to Dato' Ahmad Razali, the former Menteri Besar (P4) and another dated 18 August 1986, addressed to YAB Encik Mohamad bin Haji Mohd Taib, the succeeding Menteri Besar (P7) appealing against the refusal to grant the transfer. A month later on 30 September 1986, the plaintiff also applied for a lease on the same land (D2). Meanwhile by a letter dated 26 December 1986, addressed to Supreme Corporation, the State Government approved the application by former to transfer the land to the plaintiff. Unfortunately the approval was only conveyed almost 3½ months after the lease had lapsed.

On 20 July 1987, the plaintiff sent a reminder to the State Government regarding the application for lease. To this they received a reply dated 5 April 1988, (P10) stating that the State Government had rejected their application for lease. The plaintiff again appealed to the Menteri Besar on 8 October 1988, (P11) and this was rejected on 15 June 1989, (P12).

The plaintiff now proceeding under s. 418 of the National Land Code, appealed against the decision of the State Government and seeks for the following remedies:

1. (a) The decision of the 1st defendant conveyed in a letter dated 5 April 1988, and which decision rejected the plaintiff's application for a re-lease of all the property held under Lot 3269, PT No. 3088, H.S.(M)5258, Mukim and District of Petaling Jaya, Batu 8, be set aside.

1. (b) The decision of the 2nd defendant dated 12 April 1989, in rejecting the plaintiff's appeal on the decision of the 1st defendant referred to above be set aside.

2. An order directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to re-lease the abovesaid property to the plaintiff for a minimum period permissible by the National Land Code.

3. Costs of this application be paid by the defendants.

4. That such other orders or directions be made or given as this honourable Court deems just.

In its affidavit in support of the application the receiver/manager of the plaintiff inter alia alleged that the representation made to the plaintiff by the Pengarah Tanah & Galian (Defendant No.1) had given rise to an implied contract that the State Government would re-lease or alienate the land to them and that the plaintiff is entitled to apply the doctrine of estoppel to support the cause of action.

The relevant parts of the 40 paragraphs affidavit appear as follows:

12. The plaintiff entered into a conditional agreement with Supreme Corporation Sdn. Bhd. to purchase the said property subject to the defendant's approval for transfer of ownership.

16. Since the lease was coming to an end the 1st defendant asked the plaintiff to apply for re-lease or re-alienation and asked Supreme Corporation Sdn. Bhd. not to re-apply for the lease.

17. Supreme Corporation did not apply