JUDGMENT

Lau Bee Lan J:

(1) The applicants have appealed against a part of the courts decision given on 1 June 2009 where the court has dismissed the applicants application for leave for judicial review (encl. 1). Basically on 1 June 2009, the court ruled:

The Court finds that there is inordinate delay and there are no good reasons to grant extension of time in respect of the 1st decision (13.1.1997).

In respect of the 2nd decision (21.2.2008), the Court is of the view that it is not a decision which is reviewable or amenable to judicial review.

Encl. 1 para (b), c(i), (ii) and (d) which relate to the 1st decision and para (a), (c)(iii) to (viii) which relate to the 2nd decision is dismissed.

(2) The applicants application (encl. 1) refers to two prayers and is in relation to two decisions dated 13 January 1997 ("1st decision") and 21 February 2008 ("2nd decision") of the 1st respondent:

(i) paragraph a, c(iii) to (viii) relate to the 2nd decision;

(ii) paragraph b, c(i), (ii) and (d) relate to the 1st decision.

(3) The court has considered the submissions of the applicants (AA1); 2nd submission - applicants response to submission of the 2nd respondent (A6) and 3rd submission - response to 1st respondent (A10); 2nd respondents written submission (B1) and 2nd respondents written submission in reply (B3); AGs submission (C1) and the oral submissions including the relevant cause papers and authorities.

(4) The applicants are residents and registered owners of properties in Kampung Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang (exh. JKK1 in encl. 3 - affidavit in support of the applicants). The applicants, are members of "Jawatankuasa Bertindak Menentang Penggunaan "Cyanide" Dalam Perlombongan Emas di Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang" ("Anti-Cyanide Committee") and purport to represent all the residents of Kampung Bukit Koman (about 3,000) who the applicants contend object to the 2nd respondents Carbon-In-Leach ("CIL") plant being built near the village.

(5) The 1st respondent is the director general of the department of environment and is the governmental body responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 ("EQA").

(6) The 2nd respondent is the company that has been granted the mining rights under Mining Certificate ("MC") 483 now known as Mining Lease ("ML") 1669 to approximately 303 acres of land. The 2nd respondent is the proponent of a project to process old gold mine tailings using the CIL process which involves the use of the chemical cyanide.

(7) For the chronology of events the court gratefully adopts the tabulation as set out at para. 8 at pp. 6-15 of the 2nd respondents written submission ("B1"). The salient events are:

(a) As of early 1996, the 2nd respondent had informed the people of Raub including the residents of Kampung Bukit Koman that it intended to build a CIL plant to source for gold. Such information was readily available in the public domain by virtue of the various newspapers articles surrounding the 2nd respondents proposed project and the fact that this issue was addressed in the Pahang State Assembly;

(b) On 13 January 1997, the 1st respondent approved the 2nd respondents EIA Report;

(c) On or about March 2006, the 2nd respondent halted all mining operations under Phase 1 in preparation for the construction of the CIL plant under Phase 2;

(d) Over the course of the last 11 years numerous articles have appeared in the Chinese, Malay and English newspapers relating to the 2nd respondents CIL project;

(e) The 2nd respondent together with its technical consultants and representatives from the Department of Environment have on a number of occasions consulted the residents of Kampung Bukit Koman and the JKKK Committee for Kampung Bukit Koman, ie, on 22 September 2006 and 19 November 2006;

(f) Between 29 January 2007 to 21 February 2008, the applicants and/or Sahabat Alam Malaysia commenced and/or undertook extra-legal and/or extra-judicial conduct in an attempt to obtain a detailed EIA