JUDGMENT

Gabriel Gumis JC:

[1] The reliefs sought by the applicants against the respondents are:

(a) an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash forthwith the decisions of the 1st respondent that granted approvals for the development of a 13-storey residential condominium on the land held under document of the title TL 017522593 ("the subject land");

(b) an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash forthwith the decisions of the 2nd respondent to rezone the land use for the land held under the said documents of title from a low density residential zone to a medium density residential zone;

(c) an order of prohibition directed at the 1st respondent prohibiting it from issuing any building approvals in respect of 3rd respondent's proposed development of the subject land;

(d) an order of mandamus compelling the 1st respondent to provide the applicants with a full set of the permits and approvals granted in respect of the subject land and the full set of all relevant minutes of the 1st respondent's meetings in which the development of the subject land were discussed;

(e) an order of mandamus compelling the 2nd respondent to provide the applicants with a full set of all minutes of meetings of the 2nd respondent which are relevant to the subject land;

(f) an order of prohibition directed at the 1st respondent prohibiting it from issuing any certificate of fitness for occupation in respect of the 3rd defendant's high rise residential condominium development on the subject land.

[2] The grounds relied on by the applicants are that:

(a) the planning approvals are unlawful, null and void on the ground of procedural unfairness;

(b) the planning approvals are unlawful, null and void on the ground that they are unreasonable and irrational; and

(c) the planning approvals are unlawful, null and void on the ground that they are contrary to the legitimate expectation of the applicants.

[3] In the course of these proceedings, the respondents had raised a preliminary objection to the applicant's application on the ground that the applicants had come to court with "unclean hands" and hence not entitled to the relief claimed. Affidavit evidence has shown that the applicants had encroached into the area described as the "open space" (which is State land) by allowing their structures to occupy the open space despite being aware of the boundaries of their own landed properties. The structures concerned include garage, retaining wall and pondok. The respondents contend that the applicants have come to court with "unclean hands" and that they should be denied the reliefs sought. To grant them the reliefs sought would be tantamount to sanctioning the illegal occupation of State land by the applicants and endorsing the use of the open space for their personal benefit. The court must not allow this to happen.

[4] The applicants contend that the doctrine of "unclean hands" relied on by the respondents do not apply to public law remedies which involve matters of public interest, while equitable remedies are private or personal in nature. Further, the applicants also contend that the allegation of impropriety must have direct relation to the subject matter or judicial review, which they argue is not the case here. The applicants accordingly pray that the preliminary objection by the respondents ought to be dismissed.

[5] Now, judicial review remedies are discretionary in nature (see: ; [2001] 3 ILR 85 and ; [2002] 3 MLJ 326). Because of the discretionary nature of the remedies, the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to grant a remedy.

[6] In the Kumpulan Linggi case, it was contended that the applicant had approached the court with unclean hands when applying for the remedy of the judicial review. The court of Appeal accepted that the conduct of the applicant is a relevant consideration (although, on the facts of that case the applicant had not conducted himself in such a way to disentitle it to the relief claimed). The miscond