SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 MarsdenLR 426

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DR MICHAEL JEYAKUMAR DEVARAJ – Appellant
Versus
PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01-9-04-2012(W)]



Judicial review does not extend to decisions based on policy considerations or management prerogative, and such matters are not justiciable unless they violate constitutional provisions.

Headnote:(A) Judicial Review - Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) - Appeal by Member of Parliament against decision regarding allocation of public funds - Court of Appeal found that decisions regarding such allocations involve policy considerations and management prerogative, rendering them non-justiciable - Leave to institute judicial review proceedings was not granted by the High Court. (Paras 1-26)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Court's Power - Whether the exercise of discretion by the executive can be reviewed judicially depends on the specific facts of each case - The principles of non-justiciability were reaffirmed, emphasizing that not all executive decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny. (Paras 16, 20-22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Member of Parliament, applied for judicial review after the respondents rejected his application for a special constituency allocation for various community projects. The Attorney General objected on grounds of non-justiciability, citing policy considerations and management prerogative in the allocation process.

Findings of Court:
The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the objections raised were valid, and the decisions regarding the allocation were not subject to judicial review as they were based entirely on executive discretion pertaining to policy.

Issues: The main issues included whether the judicial review application should have been based on policy consideration or management prerogative and the justiciability of executive decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the exercise of discretion by the Director-General and the relevant respondents regarding budget allocations was grounded in policy and was thus not justiciable by the courts, allowing the Court of Appeal's decision to be upheld.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top