(ii) the Government of Selangor Gazette no 2642 dated 7 July 2022. (Collectively referred to as “Impugned Decisions”) [4] The applicants had on 6 June 2024, filed an Ex-Parte application in Enclosure 15, coupled with a certificate of urgency, seeking an order from this court for an interim stay of execution of the Impugned Decisions until the full and final disposal of the substantive judicial review application. [5] On 7 June 2024, notwithstanding the prayer sought by the applicants, this court granted an interim stay until the stay application is heard inter parte with the involvement of all parties. This decision of this court is now the subject matter of this appeal. Prelude [6] At the outset, this court must state that this appeal by the putative third respondent against the order for interim stay is academic. The reasons for this are as follows. [7] On 15 July 2024, the putative third respondent filed an application in Enclosure 38 to vary the interim stay order in order to have certain works which the putative third respondent termed as “precursors” to the actual project which is the subject of the development order, to be carried out. [8] On 24 July 2024, parties had reached an agreement which was duly recorded by this court. The variation is that the putative third respondent would be allowed to carry out permitted works. [9] Hence, the ad interim stay order which is the subject matter of this appeal had been varied, with the consent of all parties. [10] When this court queried if this subject matter of the appeal being rendered academic following the variation of the ad interim stay order, the court was informed by the putative third respondent that the appeal still stands. [11] The applicant said they had yet to take instruction and will raise objections if necessary. [12] The putative first respondent stated that they had no instructions as to the appeal as it was between the applicant and the putative third respondent. [13] The Attorney General’s Chambers were of the view that it did not involve them. [14] The consent order to vary the ad interim stay this court granted was in force until 12 August 2024. [15] Subsequently, on 12 August 2024, this court heard arguments from all parties on the applicant’s application for ad interim stay, in the presence of all parties. The putative third respondent prayed for the ad interim stay to be discontinued. [16] Having heard and considered the submissions from the applicant, the putative first respondent and putative third respondent (putative second respondent has no objections), pertaining to the continuation of the ad interim stay, this court found there was no full and frank disclosure at the time the ad interim stay was granted. [17] The ad interim stay was granted without full and frank disclosure particularly to the status and ownership of the land in that the land in question was a private land. [18] This court also found that should this court find for the applicants at the substantive judicial review, the putative third respondent had undertaken to restore the land to its original position. [19] However, should this court find for the putative respondents, the applicants will most likely not be able to compensate the putative third respondent for the damages suffered. For these reasons, this court discontinued the ad interim stay. [20] The effect of the discontinuance of the ad interim stay by this court on 12 August 2024 is that there is no longer an order for an ad interim stay. It follows therefore the subject matter of this appeal is no longer in existence, and hence this appeal has become academic and is an abuse of the court process. Analysis [21] In the event the Court of Appeal is not with this court and deemed it fit to proceed with hearing the merits of the appeal by the putative third respondent, the reason this court allowed the ad interim stay on 7 June 2024, is because the development works on the land in question was about to commence. [22] As averred by the applicants, the land in question served as a secondary rainforest, a shelter for the wildlife, and rich with biodiversity. It is also a buffer zone for the area where the applicants reside, to prevent that area from being flooded. It is a “green space” for the applicants. In the event an ad interim stay was not allowed, the land would no longer be in a position it was before, in light of the scale of the development order which has been approved on the land in question. [23] The applicants being the residents in Bukit Jelutong would be directly impacted should the development order proceed and this court was, at that particular time, of the view that the balance of equity tips in favour of an ad interim stay being granted. [see: Godfrey Philips (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan (Kesihatan Awam), Kementerian Kesihatan, Malaysia [2011] 9 CLJ 670, HC] [24] Notwithstanding the foregoing, in view that the stay application of the applicants was heard on an ex parte basis, this court granted the stay on an ad interim basis, pending the matter to be heard from all the parties concerned. This was despite the fact that the applicant in Enclosure 15 prayed for a stay to be granted pending the disposal of the whole judicial review application. [25] As stated earlier, this court was at that point of time, without the benefit of hearing from the putative third respondent. The putative third respondent had yet to be added as a party to this judicial review application (they were added as putative third respondent in this suit on 21 June 2024). It follows that there was no information that the land in question is in fact owned by the putative third respondent, and there was also no undertaking by the putative third respondent to restore the land to its original condition, should this court eventually decide against the respondents. [26] After hearing from the putative third respondent, other than the issues which were mentioned earlier, this court is satisfied that the applicants will most likely not be able to compensate the third putative respondent for the damages suffered, should this court find for the putative respondents. All of the elements mentioned above were – with the benefit of hearing from the putative third respondent – interwoven and culminate in this court being satisfied that the ad interim stay should be discontinued. [27] In any event, the ad interim stay granted by this court on 7 June 2024 was of ad interim nature, pending the matter being heard in an inter parte basis. Conclusion [28] For the aforementioned reasons, this court is of the considered view this appeal is academic and nugatory. Date: 28 August 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For the applicant: Kuhanraj a/l N. Manokaran, Ramkarpal Singh a/l Karpal Singh Tetuan Saha & Associates Advocates & Solicitors Suite 2.03, 2nd Floor, Wisma Bandar, No. 18, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, 50100 Kuala Lumpur. kuhan@sahaadvocates.com +6 03 2697 1960 For AGC: Nur Aifaa binti Che Abdullah Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia Bahagian Guaman, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya. +603 8872 2000 For the putative 1st respondent: Raja Kumar Raja Kandan, Koh Yi Ting Tetuan Azman Davidson & Co. Advocates & Solicitors Suite 13.03, 13th Floor, Menara Tan & Tan, 207 Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur adckl2@azmandavidson.com.my +6 03 5629 3888 For the putative 2nd respondent: Siti Radziah binti Kamarudin Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. +6 03 5544 7183 For the putative 3rd respondent: D.P Naban, Farah Shuhadah binti Ramli, Nadia Afiqah binti Abdul Hadi Tetuan Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership Advocates & Solicitors Aras 16, Menara 1 Dutamas, Solaris Dutamas, No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. +6 03 6209 5400 sara@rdslawpartners.com