FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DR MICHAEL JEYAKUMAR DEVARAJ – Appellant
Versus
PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01-9-04-2012(W)]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against court of appeal decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background on the application for judicial review. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal on 10 October 2011, which allowed the Attorney General's appeal against the decision of the High Court. The High Court had on 28 February 2011 dismissed the Attorney General's objection to the respondent's application for leave to file an application for judicial review under O 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC").
[2] Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 8 March 2012 and the questions framed for determination of this appeal are:
Question 1
Whether an allegation that the decision or exercise of discretion sought to be reviewed under judicial review is based on policy consideration or management prerogative ought to be determined on an application for leave for judicial review, or whether the issue ought to be determined by the Court after hearing all the evidence at the substantive motion for judicial review.
Question 2
Whether a decision is alleged to be based on policy consideration or management prerogative ("non-statutory discretion") is ex facie non-justiciable, or whether the justiciability of such a decision is dependent on the existence, nature and extent of the non-statutory discretion and on the particulars facts of each case.
Background Facts
[3] The appellant is the Member of Parliament ("MP") for the Sungai Siput constituency in the State of Perak. Before the High Court, the appellant had applied for leave for judicial review under O 53 of the RHC, to challenge the decision of the Director-General of the Implementation Coordination Unit of the Prime Minister's Department ("1st respondent), the Director of the Perak State Development Office ("2nd respondent") and the Government of Malaysia ("3rd respondent") with regards to allocation of public monies known as the Special Constituency Allocation from the Federal Consolidated Funds in particular to Sungai Siput constituency.
[4] The facts leading to the application are these. On 9 July 2010, the appellant wrote to the 2nd respondent applying for funds from the special allocation for the year 2010 for various projects and activities and purchases of equipments for schools, association and communities in Sungai Siput constituency. The appellant stated in his letter that the projects and activities applied for, fall within the situations for which funding will be and has been approved according to the 1st respondent's website, the written response by the Prime Minister's Department in Parliament and the 2nd respondent's letter dated 19 October 2009.
[5] The funds applied for in the 2010 application were as follows:
a) For victims of natural disasters (to be kept in the district office)
RM50,000
b) SMJK Shing Chung
RM25,000
c) SJK Methodist
RM25,000
d) Nurul Ihsan Orpanage
RM50,000
e) SJK (T) Mahatma Ghandi Kalaalai
RM25,000
f) SJK(T) Ladang Dovenby
RM25,000
g) SRJK(C) Shing Chung
RM25,000
h) Sg Buloh Old Folks' Home
RM25,000
i) Sg Siput-Kuala Kangsar Association For the Disabled
RM5,000
j) Small Projects For Traditional Villages
RM160,000
k) Meetings with youth in recreational parks and villages
RM5,000
l) Anbu Nilayam Child Care Center (for single mothers)
RM30,000
m) Small projects for Orang Asli
RM200,000
[6] The 2nd respondent by a letter dated 26 July 2010 informed the appellant that:
6.1. as of 25 July 2010, 56 projects valued at RM1.72 million had been approved for Sungai Siput, nine of which valued at RM1.15 million were being implemented, while 47 projects valued at RM 561,865.15 had been completed;
6.2. the appellant's application for RM50,000 for victims of natural disasters to be deposited in the Land Office, cannot be considered because there was no allocation for that purpose. It was suggested that the appellant submits the list of victims concerned together with police report for consideration, so that there would be no overlapping with contri
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.