JUDGMENT

Augustine Paul J:

The central issue for determination in this motion is the proper manner of effecting service of an election petition on a returned candidate when he has not availed himself of r. 10 ('r. 10') of the Election Petition Rules 1954 ('the Rules').

The petitioner is Ramely bin Mansor ('the petitioner') who had cast his vote for the Parliamentary constituency of Wangsa Maju in the Federal Territory during the general election held on 29 November 1999. The candidates for the constituency were Zulhasnan bin Rafique and Marina binte Mohd Yusof. Zulhasnan bin Rafique was duly elected. The result was gazetted on 20 January 2000. The respondents to the petition are the Election Commission ('the Commission'), the returning officer and the returned candidate. The petitioner presented his petition at the registry of the High Court Kuala Lumpur on 10 February 2000 together with four copies of the petition. The High Court retained the petition but returned the four copies to the petitioner. As the returned candidate had not complied with r. 10 the petitioner attempted to effect service of the petitioner by way of an advertisement in The Star newspaper on 21 and 22 February 2000. The respondents tried to obtain a copy of the petition from the High Court registry by 25 February 2000 but were informed that the petitioner had not left any copies to be given to the respondents. The High Court registry duly informed the petitioner about the absence of the copies in the court file and was furnished with copies of same though it was after the expiry of the fifteen-day period. The respondents thus filed this motion to have the petition dismissed on the ground that there was no proper service.

Service of election petitions is governed by r. 10 and r. 15 ('r. 15') of the Rules. They read as follows:

rule 10

Any person returned may at any time, after he is returned, send or leave at the office of the Registrar a writing, signed by him, appointing an advocate to act for him in case there should be a petition against him, or stating that he intends to act for himself, and in either case giving an address within

Malaysia at which notices addressed to him may be left. Every such writing shall be stamped with the duty payable thereon under the law for the time being in force.

rule 15

Notice of the presentation of a petition, accompanied by a copy thereof, shall, within fifteen days of the presentation of the petition, be served by the petitioner on the respondent.

Such service may be effected either by delivering the notice and copy aforesaid to the advocate appointed by the respondent under rule 10 or by posting the same in a registered letter to the address given under rule 10 at such time that, in the ordinary course of post, the letter would be delivered within the time above mentioned, or if no advocate has been appointed, or no such address given, by a notice published in the Gazette or in a newspaper circulating within the constituency or electoral ward in which the election was held, or posted on the notice board of the High Court in the State in which that constituency or electoral ward is situated, stating that such petition has been presented, and that a copy of the same may be obtained by the respondent on application at the office of the Registrar.

I had the occasion to consider the manner in which election petition jurisdiction should be exercised in Dr Lee Chong Meng v. Returning Officer, Abdul Rahman bin Haji Abdullah & Ors (Election Petition No PP-1-2000) (No 1). I referred to cases such as NP Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal AIR [1952] SC 64, Harcharan Singh v. Mahinder Singh AIR [1968] SC 1500, Tengku Korish v. Mohamed bin Jusoh & Anor[1969] and Hugh Siak Meng & Anor v. Daing Ibrahim [1975] 4 MC 275 to conclude that it is wellestablished that the right of a person to file an election petition is derived from a specific statute relating to elections and that any procedure laid down by such a special