1. ) Damien Thaman Divean v 1. ) Majlis Eksekutif Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (Exco) (BA-25-57-08/2022)

DAMIEN THAMAN DIVEAN (No. K/P: 771106-14-5693) (MEWAKILI PERTUBUHAN PELINDUNG KHAZANAH ALAM) (NO. PENDAFTARAN: PPM-028-10-24022011) 23/09/2022 09:11:10

LIM TECK WYN (MEWAKILI PERTUBUHAN RIMBA KOMUNITI SHAH ALAM) (NO. PENDAFTARAN: PPM-028-10-24022011) …PEMOHON-PEMOHON

MAJLIS EKSEKUTIF NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL

PENGARAH JABATAN PERHUTANAN NEGARA

PENGARAH JABATAN TANAH GALIAN

KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN YCH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 200701037807 (795836-V)) …PENCELAH JUDGEMENT [in allowing an interim stay dated 11.8.2022] [1] This is an appeal by the intervener against the order of this court on 11.8.2022 [Notice of appeal dated 5.9.2022(Enclosure 21)]. Background [2] The applicants filed an application for judicial review on 3.8.2022. The applicants were seeking the following reliefs from this court: “(1) Bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon yang dinamakan di atas diberi kebenaran untuk memulakan semakan kehakiman terhadap pengeluaran pemberitahuan warta (Warta Negara No.1645 bertarikh 14.04.2022 [PHNSel. 100- 1/9/1 Jld.2 (11): PU Sel. (ADV) PS.05/4/5]) oleh Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor pada 05.05.2022 yang menyahwartakan 406.22 hektar Hutan Simpan Bukit Cherakah (“Pemberitahuan Warta”) melalui perintah certiorari untuk pembatalan Pemberitahuan

Bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon yang dinamakan di atas diberi kebenaran untuk memulakan semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Responden ke-1 dan/atau ke-4 pada 20.11.2000 untuk menyahwartakan Hutan Simpan Bukit Cherakah (“Keputusan Responden Ke-1 dan/atau Ke-4”) melalui suatu perintah untuk certiorari kerana adalah ia tidak rasional untuk Responden-Responden membenarkan pembangunan Hutan Simpan Bukit Cherakah melalui pelaksanaan keputusan yang telah dibuat 22 tahun lalu kerana keputusan itu kini lapuk;

Bahawa Pemohon yang dinamakan di atas diberi kebenaran untuk memulakan semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Responden-Responden untuk membenarkan pembangunan di Hutan Simpan Bukit Cherakah dan memohon pengisytiharan bahawa keperluan untuk siasatan awam seperti yang termaktub dalam Enakmen Akta Perhutanan Negara (anak angkat) (Pindaan) Tahun 2011 perlu dipatuhi oleh Responden-Responden sebagai prasyarat sebelum pewartaan mana-mana tanah boleh dibenarkan di negeri Selangor;

Bahawa Pemohon juga mengusulkan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini semasa perbicaraan permohonan kebenaran ini untuk mendapatkan relif yang disebut dalam perenggan (1) hingga (4) di atas dan lanjutan, perintah yang akan diberikan menurut Aturan 53 Kaedah 3(5) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk semua tindakan, prosiding, prosiding pelaksanaan atau apa-apa tindakan lain yang mungkin timbul daripada atau berkaitan dengan atau untuk penguatkuasaan atau pelaksanaan atau sebagai hasil langsung daripada keputusan Responden Pertama bertarikh 05.05.2022 digantung sehingga permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman telah diputuskan dan diselesaikan secara keseluruhan dan dengan muktamad atau sehingga ia diperintahkan sebaliknya oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini (selepas ini dirujuk secara kolektif sebagai “Perintah Penggantunggan”);

Arahan yang akan timbul daripada pelepasan yang diperolehi seperti di atas;

Tiada perintah mengenai kos kerana tindakan ini adalah suatu litigasi kepentingan awam; dan

Apa-apa relif lanjutan atau lain-lain relif yang difikirkan perlu dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.” [3] The application was filed with a certificate of urgency. This court fixed the case on 11.8.2022 for case management. The applicants sought to obtain leave to file a judicial review application and prayed for a stay pending leave application. For the putative respondent, Puan Nur Irmawatie objected to the application for stay and requested to file an affidavit in reply. [4] This court then made the following orders on 11.8.2022:

The putative respondent is to file affidavit in reply by 25.8.2022;

(ii) The applicant is to file affidavit in response by 1.9.2022;

(iii) The application for stay is to be heard inter parte on 28.9.2022; and

(iv) An interim stay is granted until the disposal of the inter parte stay application. [5] On 24.8.2022, the intervener filed an application to intervene in these proceedings. The application in Enclosure 12 was set to be heard before this court on 2.9.2022. [6] On 2.9.2022 at the hearing of Enclosure 12, the applicant and the respondents did not objection to the intervener’s intervention. Accordingly, having heard parties, this court allowed the application to intervene in Enclosure 12 with no order as to costs. [7] Learned counsel for the intervener then sought clarification from this court whether the ad interim stay would apply to his client. The ad interim stay was granted by this court on 11.8.2022, prior to the intervener becoming a party to these proceedings. [8] The order for the ad interim stay [Enclosure 15] allowed by this court is reproduced as follows: “Suatu injunksi ad interim bahawa bahawa semua tindakan, prosiding, prosiding pelaksanaan atau apa-apa tindakan lain yang mungkin timbul daripada atau berkaitan dengan atau untuk penguatkuasaan atau pelaksanaan atau sebagai hasil langsung daripada keputusan Responden Pertama bertarikh 05.05.2022 untuk menyahwartakan Hutan Simpanan Bukit Cherakah melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No.1645 bertarikh 14.04.2022 [PHNSel. 100-1/9/1 Jld.2 (11): PU Sel. (ADV) PS.05/4/5] digantung sehingga permohonan untuk kebenaran semakan kehakiman telah diputuskan dan diselesaikan secara keseluruhan dan dengan muktamad atau sehingga ia diperintahkan sebaliknya oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.” This Appeal [9] The intervener has appeal to the whole of this court’s decision on 11.8.2022 in granting the ad interim stay. On 2.9.2022, where this court made the following orders upon the intervener seeking for clarification:

The application for stay inter parte is to be heard on 28.9.2022; and

(iii) The intervener was allowed to filed an affidavit to object to the inter parte stay application. Analysis [10] The intervener is appealing against the ad interim stay granted by this court on 11.8.2022. The ad interim stay was allowed by this court on 11.8.2022, prior to the intervener becoming a party to these proceedings on 2.9.2022. At the proceeding before this court on 2.9.2022, this court instructed the intervener to file an affidavit in reply if the intervener intended to oppose the stay proceedings which is scheduled for 28.9.2022. [11] The question arise before this court is whether an interim order is appealable? In this regard, this court made reference to the Federal Court case of Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd (registered owner and licensee of the higher learning institution Lincoln University College) v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 2 MLJ 1. In that case, His Lordship Azahar Mohamed CJM stated the following: “[6] The right to appeal in civil matters under s 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (‘the CJA’) is subject to the definition of ‘decision’ as found in s 3 of the CJA. Section 67(1) of the CJA provides that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to determine appeals from any ‘judgment’ or ‘order’ of any High Court in civil matters: 67 Jurisdiction to hear and determine civil appeals

The Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order of any High Court in any civil cause or matter, whether made in the exercise of its original or of its appellate jurisdiction, subject nevertheless to this or any other written law regulating the terms and conditions upon which such appeals shall be brought. (Emphasis added.) [7] The construction of the word ‘decision’ is a matter of importance in this case. While the term ‘decision’ is not expressly used in s 67(1), the words ‘judgment’ and ‘order’ are contained in the definition of ‘decision’ in s 3 of the CJA: ‘Decision’ means judgment sentence or order, but does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties;” [12] The facts in this case is that an ad interim stay was allowed pending the disposal of the stay inter parte. In the humble and considered view of this court, the interim stay granted is not an appealable decision. The decision is not a final decision as the inter parte stay proceedings have yet to be heard. Conclusion [13] The intervener was not yet a party to the proceedings when the interim stay was granted by this court. The application for stay inter parte is scheduled to be heard on 28.9.2022. The intervener was instructed to file his affidavit opposing the application for stay. The intervener may oppose the application for stay inter parte on 28.9.2022. [14] Moreover, based on the Federal Court case of Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd (registered owner and licensee of the higher learning institution Lincoln University College) v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor (supra), this court opines that the ad interim stay order is unappealable. Date: 22 September 2022 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Peguam: Pihak Perayu : Arun Ganesh Bupalan Tetuan Raj & Sach Advocates & Solicitors C-5-42, 10 Boulevard, PJU 6A, Lebuhraya SPRINT, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. admin@rajsach.com +6 03 7493 4089 Pihak Responden : SFC Nur Irmawatie binti Daud Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan Ting. 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah, 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. +6 03 5544 7183 Pihak Pencelah : - Tetuan Aaron KC Ng & Partners Advocates & Solicitors A-3-02, Kelana Square, No. 17, Jalan SS7/26, Kelana Jaya, 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. +6 03 7880 2388