SHINY RESOURCES SDN. BHD. v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang (BA-25-82-10/2025)

High Court of Malaysia20 Feb 2026BA-25-82-10/2025

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Text not available yet

We have this decision's details, but the judgment text is not available yet.

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 20 Feb 2026
Case number: BA-25-82-10/2025
Coram: YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson
Practice area: Application for leave to commence judicial review application to challenge the decision of the First Respondent’s decision rejecting their applications to be alienated lands AG objected to the application on the following grounds - (i) Applicant 13 did not have the locus standi to file this application as she was not a TOL holder nor had she applied to the Lands to be alienated to her
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 26 Feb 2026
Source ID: d4b8442a-087b-469e-9139-89c66fca0a2d

Catchwords

Application for leave to commence judicial review application to challenge the decision of the First Respondent’s decision rejecting their applications to be alienated lands AG objected to the application on the following grounds - (i) Applicant 13 did not have the locus standi to file this application as she was not a TOL holder nor had she applied to the Lands to be alienated to her(ii) Applicants 1, 2, 3 and 20 did not have the locus standi to file this application as they were not aggrieved by the Rejection Letters because it was not addressed to them(iii) Applicant 14 did not have the locus standi because their application for the Lands to be alienated to them was still in consideration and had not been rejected(iv) Enclosure 1 was filed outside the prescribed time frame(v) Enclosure 1 was vexatious and frivolous as the Applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure, there were no grounds to challenge the Notices and their application for an order of mandamus was flawed. AG's objections were allowed and the Applicants' application for leave was dismissed

Parties

1. ) SHINY RESOURCES SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) PRISTANA HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties
3. ) MASTER EXPRESS TRAVELS & TOURS SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties
4. ) G.B. RESOURCES SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties
5. ) VILLA CERIA SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties
6. ) PUNCAK PURNAMA SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

Parties

1. ) SHINY RESOURCES SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties

2. ) PRISTANA HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties

3. ) MASTER EXPRESS TRAVELS & TOURS SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties

4. ) G.B. RESOURCES SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties

5. ) VILLA CERIA SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties

6. ) PUNCAK PURNAMA SDN. BHD. - applicant - ejudgment_parties