(d) an order for interim reinstatement restoring the status of PTKM as a registered sports body under the Sports Development Act 1997. B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [3] PTKM is a national sports body duly registered under the Sports Development Act 1997 since 9.10.2020. PTKM is a highly active association overseeing over 40,000 members and hundreds of coaches nationwide with longstanding approvals from the Ministry of Education (KPM) to conduct Taekwondo programs in schools. [4] On 28.4.2025, the Applicants received a letter from Kukkiwon Korea regarding the usage of the “Kukkiwon” name. The letter was a statement of policy and did not contain any directives or allegations that PTKM’s registration in Malaysia was invalid or illegal. Investigations by PTKM revealed that the issue originated from a technical registration error by a subsidiary member club which was fully resolved with the international body prior to R2’s intervention. [5] Despite the resolution technical issue, R2 issued a Warning Letter to the Applicants on 8.7.2025 demanding an explanation on the usage of “Kukkiwon” in PTKM registration. The Applicants then explained vide letters dated 1.8.2025 and 4.8.2025 clarifying that the matter was resolved and did not affect PTKM’s statutory standing. However, on 4.8.2025, without evaluating the Applicants’ explanation, R2 issued a Notice to Show Cause to the Applicants. [6] On 15.8.2025, the Applicants replied to the said Show Cause Notice to R2. R2 did not reply or give any feedback to the Applicant. Nevertheless, unknown to the Applicants, on 3.10.2025, R2 issued a notice to deregister PTKM due to “registration by mistake” without any supporting evidence. [7] Without the knowledge of the deregistration notice, the Applicants filed a complaint on 17.10.2025 and also a formal written appeal to R1 regarding the deregistration of PTKM. However, instead of exercising R1’s statutory duty to review the appeal by the Applicants, R1 referred the matter back to R2. [8] The decision of R2 to deregister PKTM was only received by the Applicants on 22.10.2025. Prior to this date, R2 had not received any notice of any final decision regarding their complaint and appeal to R1. As a result of the deregistration and the failure to issue a decision on the appeal, PTKM is unable to conduct various programme which had already been scheduled and this is damaging to PTKM’s reputation. C. THE RESPONDENTS’ REPLY [9] The relevant law pertaining to registration and supervision of sports bodies comes under the Sports Development Act 1997. Any revocation or suspension of registration of any sports bodies comes under the purview of the Commissioner (Section 20) of the Sports Development Act 1997 and if any sports bodies aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner, they can appeal to the Minister whose decision thereon shall be final by virtue of Section 21 of the said Act. [10] The AGC in objecting this leave for judicial review submits that the Applicants are former office bearers and individuals and not the registered sports body affected by the impugned decision. Section 21 of the Sports Development Act 1997 expressly confers the right to appeal only upon an “aggrieved sports body” and not upon individual members or former office bearers. The Applicants do not fall within the class of persons contemplated by statue as being entitled to challenge the decision. The application is not a public interest litigation but a private dispute motivated by personal dissatisfaction. [11] The Applicants did not exhaust statutory remedies. The Sports Development Act 1997 establishes a comprehensive statutory framework governing disputes relating to registered bodies ie: i. Section 21 – an appeal to the Minister ii. Section 22 – the Minister’s interim powers; and iii. Section 23 -24 – dispute resolutions through the Sports Dispute Committee [12] In the present case, the Applicants’ did not await the final determination of the Minister under Section 21 but instead proceeded directly to file judicial review proceedings. This amounts to a deliberate circumvention of the statutory appeal mechanism expressly prescribed by Parliament. [13] This application is plainly premature, procedurally improper and amounts to a misuse of the judicial review process. On this ground alone, the Applicants have failed to satisfy the threshold requirement for leave under Order 53 and the application ought to be dismissed. C. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [14] The test applicable in determining the grant or otherwise of the leave for judicial review was laid down in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 296 at p.303 where the Federal Court held: “….Without the need to go into depth of the abundant authorities, suffice if we state that leave may be granted if the leave application is not thought of as frivolous, and if the leave is granted, an arguable case in favour of granting the relief sought at the substantive hearing may be the resultant outcome. A rider must be attached to the application though ie unless the matter for judicial review is amenable to judicial review absolutely no success may be envisaged. Returning to the mainstream, the appeal before us relates to the first stage ie the leave application. With both the High Court and the Court of Appeal having rejected the leave application, we now begin by resolving certain preliminary matters, namely whether the appellant has the necessary locus standi, whether it has complied with the time factor, and whether the facts and circumstances before us are amendable to judicial review.” [15] The threshold for leave application is a court hearing a judicial review application must determine whether ‘prima facie there is a genuine case for review’. (see : Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abdul Razak v Attorney General & Ors [2020] 3 MLJ 114 at p. 129 COA). The threshold requirement is low, but leave should be refused if the application is frivolous and vexatious, misconceived, applicant had no arguable case, the subject matter is not amenable to judicial review and the subject matter is non-justiciable. [16] In Bar Malaysia v Peguam Negara Malaysia [2026] CLJU 1404, the Court of Appeal had cited a string of authorities to show that the leave stage is a filter. “[36] In Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia v Malayan Commercial Banks Association (supra), the Supreme Court held that the guiding principles are that the application is not frivolous and that there is an arguable case. That formulation was expressly adopted by the Federal Court in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd (supra), where it held : “[12]…… At the leave stage, on a quick perusal of the material available, if the court thinks that subsequently at the substantive hearing stage an arguable case may be disclosed, and the relief sought may be granted, leave should be granted (IRC v National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617) [37] The Federal Court also re emphasised its earlier decision in Mohd Nordin Johan v Attorney General Malaysia [1983] 1 MLJ 68; [1983] CLJ Rep 271; [1982] 1 MLRA 345, FC (per Raja Azlan Shah Ag LP) that leave should not be refused in limine if the point taken is not frivolous. [38] To similar effect, the Court of Appeal in Tan Kwor Ham & Ors v Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) (per Gopal Sri Ram JCA) cautioned that the courts “should not go into the merits of the case at the leave stage. Its role is only to see if the application for leave is frivolous. The same principles were reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Muhibbah Engineering (M) Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (supra) [39] These authorities show that the leave stage is not intended to become a final adjudication of the issues.” [17] In this application, the Applicants seek leave to apply for judicial review for the following reliefs: i. An order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Respondents made on 3.10.2025 and/or 24.10.2025 cancelling the registration of Persatuan Taekwando Kukkiwon Malaysia, on the grounds that the said decision was made ultra vires, made in excess of statutory authority, irrational, unreasonable, procedurally improper and/or in breach of the principles of natural justice and further constitutes a denial of the Applicants’ legitimate expectation; ii. A declaration that the said decision to cancel the registration of Persatuan Taekwando Kukkiwon Malaysia is unlawful, null and void and no legal effect; iii. An order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to revoke and/or withdraw the decision of cancellation and to reinstate the registration of Persatuan Taekwando Kukkiwon Malaysia as a registered sports body under the Sports Development Act 1997; and iv. An interim order pending the final and disposal of this judicial review application, suspending the operation and effect of the impugned decision and restoring the status quo ante. [18] Persatuan Taekwando Kukkiwon Malaysia (“PTKM”) is a sports body registered under the Sports Development Act 1997 [Act 576] and regulated by the Commissioner of Sports Malaysia. [19] The Applicants were former committee members of PTKM and were not themselves a registered sports entity. On 28.4.2025, the Commissioner of Sports Malaysia received a letter from Kukkiwon Korea raising issues concerning PTKM’s use of the name “Kukkiwon”. The Commissioner then issued several letters and a show cause notice to PTKM including a letter dated 8.7.2025 and a notice dated 4.8.2025 and requested further explanation from PTKM. [20] PTKM through its representatives submitted written responses dated 1.8.2025 and 4.8.2025 explaining its position and denying any violation. However, after considering the available information, the Commissioner of Sports Malaysia cancelled PTKM’s registration under Act 576 on 3.10.2025. Following the cancellation, the Applicants submitted representations and an appeal to the Minister of Youth and Sports in accordance with Section 21 of the Sports Development Act 1997. On 29.10.2025, the Minister provided a response via email regarding the cancellation. Hence, this application for judicial review. [21] The Applicants submit there are serious and arguable issues of the decision of R1 and R2. R1 had failed and/or refused to exercise jurisdiction vested under Section 21(1) of the Sports Development Act 1997 and acted ultra vires in referring the appeal back to R2 instead of making a substantive determination. R2’s act constitutes an error in law and/or facts in arriving at the impugned decision. [22] The Applicants further submit that there are arguable grounds on irrationality and unreasonableness. This is because the decision to deregistered PTKM is irrational as R1 and R2 ignored material evidence before arriving at the decision to cancel the registration of PTKM including the issue involving Kukkiwon Korea had been resolved. The Applicants were denied a fair hearing by the Respondents prior to the deregistration of PTKM despite their requests. The Applicants’ written representations dated 1.8.2025 and 4.8.2025 were neither addressed nor considered by R1 and R2. The notice of deregistration of PTKM did not provide adequate reasons, material findings or any evidential basis for the decisions. R1’s failure to determine the appeal by the Applicants also deprived the Applicants their rights for remedy provided under the law. [23] The AGC’s objections for leave are premised on three factors ie the applicants lack of locus standi, failure to exhaust statutory remedies and interim relief/ reinstatement is unwarranted. [24] The Sports Development Act 1997 [Act 576] governs all the statutory procedures for registration and supervision of sports bodies. Section 20 provides for revocation or suspension of registration by Commissioner “(1) The Commissioner shall revoke the registration of a sports body if the Commissioner is satisfied that the sports body –