1. ) Zhang Junmei v 1. ) Pengarah Jabatan Imigresen Perak (AA-25-18-06/2022)

ROC for an extension of time until 10 June 2022 to file the 105 application for leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari i.e. Enclosure 1 and that time be also extended to 16 June 2022 for the 11 Applicants to effect service of the application (Enclosure 1) and the Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 2) and Statement under Order 53 rule 3 (2) ROC 2012 (Enclosure 3) upon the 110 Attorney General Chambers (“AGC”). [2] Order 53 rule3 of the ROC provides as follows: “(1) An application under this Order shall not be made unless leave therefor 115 has been granted in accordance with this rule.

An application for leave must be made ex parte to a Judge in Chambers and must be supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought, and by affidavits verifying the facts relied on.

The applicant must give notice of the application for leave not later than three days before the hearing date to the Attorney General's Chambers and must at the same time lodge in those Chambers copies of the statement and affidavits.

The Judge may, in granting leave, impose such terms as to costs and as 125 to the giving of security as he thinks fit.

The grant of leave under this rule shall not, unless the Judge so directs, operate as a stay of the proceedings in question.

An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose 130 or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.

The Court may, upon an application, extend the time specified in rule 3(6) if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so.

An application to extend time must be served on all respondents and shall be heard inter partes.” 135 [3] After hearing parties on 18 October 2022, decision was reserved by this Court to 26 October 2022 and on the date reserved, both the applications were dismissed. These are the grounds for the decision made. 140 Background [4] The 11 Applicants are all foreign nationals with the first eight applicants from China and the other three from Vietnam. 145 [5] Whilst they were at a Karaoke outlet in Ipoh on 13 December 2021 they were allegedly unlawfully arrested and detained by the Immigration authority. [6] Through their solicitors, Messrs Bachan & Kartar (“their said 150 solicitors”), they commenced a joint application in the High Court at Ipoh (2) Criminal Application No. AA-44-73-12/2021 for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued for them to be released (“MT2 Habeas Corpus Application”). [7] Whilst the MT2 Habeas Corpus Application was ongoing, through their 155 said solicitors, they applied for criminal revision under Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking for this Court to grant an Order for the issuance of a Special Pass under Regulation 14 of the Immigration Regulations 1963 (“Regulation 14”) or to allow bail for their release. This application was registered as High Court at Ipoh (3) Criminal Revision No. 160 AA-43-1-02/2022 (“MT3 Criminal Revision Proceedings”). [8] The said Regulation 14 provides as follows: “(1) A Special Pass may be issued by the Controller to any person if 165 the Controller considers the issue of such a Pass desirable-

in order to afford an opportunity of making enquiry for the purpose of determining whether such person is entitled to an Entry Permit or is otherwise entitled to enter the Federation, Sabah or Sarawak under the provisions of the Ordinance or of 170 these Regulations, or whether such person is a prohibited immigrant; or

in order to afford such person a reasonable opportunity of prosecuting an appeal under the provisions of the Ordinance against any decision of the Controller; or 175

for any other special reason.

A Special Pass shall entitle the holder thereof to enter the Federation, Sabah or Sarawak (as the case requires) or remain therein for such period, not exceeding one month, as may be stated in such Pass: 180 Provided that the Controller may, from time to time, extend such period.

A Special Pass shall be in the Form 16 set out in the Second Schedule hereto, or in the form of an endorsement on the passport or internal travel document of the applicant, as the Controller may 185 determine.

A Special Pass may at any time be cancelled by the Controller: Provided that the Controller shall not cancel a Pass issued under the provisions of paragraph (1) (b) of this regulation otherwise than for breach of any conditions imposed in respect thereof until the appeal 190 in respect of which such Pass has been issued has been determined.

Where a Special Pass is to be issued in the said Form 16 the applicant shall, if so required, furnish to the Controller two recent photographs of himself.” 195 [9] Whilst they were under detention after their arrest on 13 December 2021, each of their respective visit passes were cancelled by the Director General of Immigration on 31 December 2021 (“Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021”). 200 [10] The 11 Notices of Cancellation all dated 31 December 2021 are exhibited in the Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 2 pages 77 to 87), and said to have been served upon the 11 Applicants respectively by Chaleek A/P Liam from the Enforcement Division of the Immigration Department. Each of these Notices of Cancellation carries a finger or thumbprint of the respective 205 11 Applicants. [11] On 31 March 2022, this Court had dismissed the MT3 Criminal Revision Proceedings principally on inter alia the ground that there is on foot the ongoing MT2 Habeas Corpus Application and the grounds of judgment 210 of this Court dated 1 April 2022 has since been published as Zhang Junmei & Ors v PP [2022] 1 LNS 554 and [2022] MLJU 481. [12] An appeal was made to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of the MT3 Criminal Revision Proceedings but that appeal has been withdrawn 215 with the 11 Applicants filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal on 27 July 2022 and by reason thereto the appeal was deemed struck out pursuant to Rule 73 (1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1994 which provides as follows: “73. Withdrawal of appeal. 220

Where an appellant, at any time before the commencement of the hearing, wishes to withdraw or discontinue his appeal, he may do so without the leave of the Court by filing in duplicate with the Registrar of the Court a notice in Form 11 in the First Schedule. A copy of the Notice shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.

Upon the filing as aforesaid of such notice the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed by the Court. PART III Presentation of Case, etc.” 230 [13] The 11 Applicants, however, succeeded in their MT2 Habeas Corpus Application principally on inter alia the ground that their arrest on 13 December 2021 and subsequent detention was unlawful and an order for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to be issued was made on 12 May 2022 (Enclosure 18 page 10). 235 [14] The grounds of judgment of Justice Bhupindar Singh Gurcharan Singh Preet JC dated 20 June 2022 for the MT2 Habeas Corpus Application has since been published as Zhang Junmei & Yang Lain lwn Pengarah Imigresen Negeri Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia Negeri Perak & Yang 240 Lain [2022] 1 LNS 1429 and also exhibited in the Affidavit affirmed by the counsel for the 11 Applicants, Mr. Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh (Enclosure 18 pages 13 to 46). [15] Through their said solicitors, on 10 June 2022, they filed an ex parte 245 application (Enclosure 1) in this Court seeking leave to apply for an order of Certiorari to quash Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2022 (“MT3 Judicial Review Proceedings”). Challenge to the Court’s Jurisdiction 250 [16] Acting in accordance with Order 53 rule 3 (3) ROC (supra) a copy each of the application (Enclosure 1), the Affidavit in Support jointly affirmed by all the 11 Applicants (Enclosure 2) and the Statement setting out the names of the Applicants, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought (Enclosure 3) was caused to be served upon the AGC. 255 [17] Order 53 rule 3 (6) ROC provides the timeline as to when an application for judicial review is to be made. Given its importance to the matter at hand, its provision is again reproduced hereunder: 260 “(6) An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.” 265 [18] The following authorities from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal clearly held that the timeline for applying for judicial review must be strictly complied with, failing which, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the application: 270

Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 5 CLJ 865; [2010] 3 MLJ 145 (FC);

(ii) Ravindran P. Muthukrishnan v. Malaysian Examinations Council [1984] 1 CLJ 232; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 320; [1984] 1 275 MLJ 168 (FC);

(iii) Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 CLJ 123 (CA); and

(iv) Abdul Rahman Abdullah Munir & Ors v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2008] 6 CLJ 805; [2008] 6 MLJ 704 (CA). 280 [19] By letter dated 22 June 2022, the learned Senior Federal Counsel (“SFC”), Tuan/Encik Muhammad Fauzi Bin Md Yusof gave notice that the AGC has objections to the ex parte application (Enclosure 1) premised upon the aforesaid provisions of Order 53 rule 3 (6) of the ROC 2012. 285 [20] The first return day of 23 June 2022 for the hearing of Enclosure 1 was adjourned to the 29 June 2022 as the Court gave priority to a continuing criminal trial in AA-45B-11-11/2018. 290 [21] On 29 June 2022, the hearing was adjourned as learned counsel for the 11 Applicants has been warded in the ICU and the application in Enclosure 1 was adjourned to the 19 August 2022. [22] Two days before 19 August 2022, the Applicants filed an application 295 (Enclosure 14) on 17 August 2022 seeking an extension of time or rather an abridgement of time till 10 June 2022 for them to file their application for leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari and an extension of time till the 16 June 2022 to serve the cause papers upon the AGC so as to seek to regularize their application, although the 11 Applicants assert that this 300 application (Enclosure 14) is only filed in abundance of caution because they take the position that the Notices of Cancellation are nullities. [23] The matter was called up for Case Management on 6 September 2022 and the AGC and the Respondents were given time till the 27 305 September 2022 to file any affidavit to resist the application in Enclosure 14. [24] In due course, an affidavit (Enclosure 21) was filed on 12 September 2022 and relied upon by the learned SFC in the course of resisting both the applications in Enclosures 14 and 1. 310 11 Applicants’ position [25] The 11 Applicants asserted they were made to sign blank pieces of papers whilst they were under detention. 315 [26] They were not informed of the decision made by the Director General of Immigration Malaysia to cancel their visit passes. [27] They go on to assert on affidavit that they have not been served with 320 any Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 and these notices were only produced by two deponents, who were officers of the immigration authority of Malaysia by way of Affidavits dated 10 February 2022 filed in the MT2 Habeas Corpus Application (Enclosure 15 paragraph 6). 325 [28] During the course of the hearing on 18 October 2022, learned counsel for the 11 Applicants admitted that they received copies of the Affidavits exhibiting the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 on 10 February 2022. 330 [29] The 11 Applicants accepted the ratio in Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v. Pegawai Kewangan Pahang [2016] 2 MLJ 225 (CA) at paragraph [79] which held that: “It is settled law that the operative time for the ground to have arisen, 335 and which set the timeline within which the application is made, is the date when the first decision [is] communicated to the applicant” [30] Reliance was also made on the Court of Appeal authority of Md Aris Zainal Abidin v. Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Anor [2002] 4 CLJ 10 and 340 the High Court authority of Sia Chiu Chuan lwn Jabatan Kastam DiRaja Malaysia & Yang Lain [2014] 3 CLJ 126 that time starts to run from the date the decision was communicated to the applicant. [31] As for leave to commence judicial review, they assert that the threshold 345 qualification is low and they have met it because besides them not being informed of the same in a language they understand, the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 is a nullity as there is no date as to when it was to take effect and in fact, the learned counsel for the 11 Applicants pointed out that the part which was to set out the date as to when the 350 cancellations were to take effect for all the 11 notices is blank (Enclosure 2 pages 77 to 87). AGC’s position 355 [32] The learned SFC made it clear that he would not be going into the merits whether the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 is a nullity save that if the Court is with him that the application in Enclosure 1 is filed out of time and that the 11 Applicants have no good reason to support the application for an extension of time (Enclosure 14) then this Court has no 360 jurisdiction to entertain the application in Enclosure

[33] Reliance was placed upon the Federal Court authority of Wong Kin Hoong & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor [2013] 4 CLJ 193 at paragraph [30] where it was held that: 365 “The time frame in applying for judicial review prescribed by the Rules is fundamental. It goes to jurisdiction and once the trial judge had rejected the explanation for the delay for extension of time to apply for judicial review, the court no longer has the jurisdiction to hear the application for 370 leave for judicial review. Whether the application has merits or not is irrelevant.” [34] Reliance was placed upon the averment contained in the Affidavit in Reply (Enclosure 21 paragraph 5.6) of Mohd Sharifuddin bin Haji Abdul 375 Rahman, an investigating officer of the Immigration Department of Malaysia of the State of Perak where he deposed that: “ Pada 31.12.2021, Penolong Pengarah Jabatan Imigresen Negeri Perak, Tajul Aripin Bin Mohamed Mokhtar telah membentangkan syor 380 pembatalan pas lawatan Pemohon-Pemohon dan telah diluluskan oleh Responden Kedua. Selanjutnya, pada tarikh yang sama, suatu Notis Pembatalan Pas di bawah Seksyen 9 (3) Akta 155 telah diserahkan kepada Pemohon-Pemohon setelah diterangkan isi kandungannya di dalam Bahasa Mandarin oleh Pegawai Imigresen, 385 Chaleek A/O Liam dan Pemohon-Pemohon mengakui faham terhadap keterangan isi kandungan notis pembatalan tersebut sebelum Pemohon-Pemohon menurunkan cap jari pada notis pembatalan tersebut. Sesalinan Notis Pembatalan Pas di bawah Seksyen 9 (3) Akta 155 390 Pemohon-Pemohon dilampirkan dan ditandakan secara kolektif sebagai Eksibit ‘TMS-5’ ’’ [35] Act 155 is the Immigration Act 1959/63 (Revised 1975) and section 9 (3) provides that: 395 “(3) Every cancellation of a Pass under paragraph 1(b) or a Permit under paragraph (1)(c) shall come into force on the date of cancellation, and the Director General shall, as soon as may be thereafter, cause a notice of the cancellation to be sent to the holder of the Pass or Permit, as the case may be, 400 if his address is known, and if it is not known, shall cause the notice to be published in such manner as he deems fit.” [36] Premised on the clear wording of section 9 (3) of the Act 155, the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 clearly took effect on the date 405 of cancellation which is 31 December 2021 without any need for a date to be specified as to when it was to come into force. [37] From the Court’s minutes of 19 August 2022, the learned SFC had in fact given notice orally that even if the date of 31 December 2021 is [not] 410 taken to be the date that the decision to cancel their passes was served upon the 11 Applicants, the AGC takes the position that the decision was communicated to them on 10 February 2022. [38] If the date of 31 December 2021 is taken, and with the 11 Applicants 415 having filed their application on 10 June 2022, they would have been out of time by 2 months and 10 days. [39] If the date of 10 February 2022 is taken to be the date the decision was communicated to the 11 Applicants, they would still be out of time by a 420 month. [40] Thus, the 11 Applicants are out of time and with no good reason having been given to account for the delay, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain their application for leave to apply for an Order for Certiorari. 425 Court’s analysis and findings [41] The prayer sought by the 11 Applicants in Enclosure 1 filed on 10 June 2022 is as follows: 430 “..permohonan oleh Pemohon-pemohon di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk perintah-perintah seperti berikut:

Bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk memohon 435 suatu Perintah Certiorari untuk dialihkan ke Mahkamah yang Mulia ini agar membatalkan (“quash”) keseluruhan keputusan Ketua Pengarah Imigresen Malaysia bagi pembatalan pas lawatan Pemohon-pemohon pada 31.12.2022 yang tidak diberitahu dan dimaklumkan kepada 440 pemohon-pemohon atas keputusan tersebut.

Kos dalam kausa bagi permohonan ini; dan

Mana-mana perintah lain yang dianggap sesuai dan manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.” 445 [42] In their application for an extension of time (Enclosure 14) the prayer sought in prayer 1 is: “Bahawa suatu permohonan diberikan untuk melanjutkan masa sehingga 10.06.2022 bagi memfailkan permohonan untuk 450 membenarkan Pemohon-pemohon untuk memohon suatu Perintah Certiorari iaitu Lampiran 1 yang difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh pada 10.06.2022 agar membatalkan (“quash”) keseluruhan keputusan Ketua Pengarah Imigresen Malaysia bagi pembatalan pas lawatan Pemohon-pemohon pada 31.12.2022.” 455 [43] In the statutory Order 53 rule 3 (2) ROC 2012 (supra) statement accompanying their application, the 11 Applicants expressly asserted that the relief sought is an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Director General of Immigration of 31 December 2022 (Enclosure 3 paragraph 16 a) 460 and ending with a prayer for an order in terms as prayed (Enclosure 3 paragraph 21). [44] Although the affidavits (Enclosures 2, 15 and 18) filed in support of the applications, including one affirmed by Mr. Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan 465 Singh (Enclosure 18), the learned counsel for the 11 Applicants made mention of the Notices of Cancellation of Visit Pass of 31 December 2021, the applications (Enclosures 1 and 14) are pleadings and it is settled law that any defects in pleadings cannot be made good by way of affidavit evidence, see United Malayan Banking Corp. Bhd. v. Palm & Vegetable Oils (M) 470 Sdn Bhd & Ors [1981] CLJ Rep 358 (FC). [45] Clearly, from the papers filed in Court, there is no decision made by the Director General of Immigration Malaysia on 31 December 2022. In any event, he could not possibly have made such a decision seeing that we have 475 not even reached the month of November let alone the month of December

On this ground alone, the applications fail to pass muster and fail in limine. [46] Even if such a fundamental defect can be overlooked, and that the 480 decision sought to be challenged is that dated 31 December 2021, the date of the impugned decision said to be 31 December 2022 was pleaded and repeated multiple times. [47] Be that as it may, and without prejudice to the finding aforesaid, and 485 although no steps have been taken by the 11 Applicants and their solicitors to have it corrected by way of an amendment, this Court will for the sake of completeness, nonetheless, proceed to consider the applications on the premise that this Court can overlook the fundamental defects identified above, and that the 11 Applicants meant to challenge the decision of the 490 Director General of Immigration of 31 December 2021. [48] During the course of the hearing on 18 October 2022, learned counsel for the 11 Applicants, Mr. Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh, took up a vigorous challenge to the late filing by the learned SFC of the AGC’s written 495 submission. He took it upon himself to admonish the learned SFC for not complying with this Court’s directions to have his written submissions filed by the 4 October 2022 when he represents the AGC and ought to set a better example. 500 [49] Although the learned counsel for the 11 Applicants sought an adjournment to reply if the written submissions of the learned SFC were to be referred to, I decided that I would not wish to delay the matter and ruled that I would not refer to the belated written submissions filed by the learned SFC. 505 [50] In my considered view, the law on the issues being canvassed is settled, and I myself had occasion to consider these issues in Menaka Deivarayan v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bagan Datuk, Perak & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 577; [2021] 7 MLJ 232; [2021] 1 AMR 461 and [2020] MLRHU 1508. 510 [51] From the divergent positions taken by the 11 Applicants about being asked to sign blank papers, about not being served with the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021, and about being informed of the contents in a language that they did not understand and that of the position taken by 515 the AGC that from the papers before the Court the Applicants have each been served with a copy of the Notice of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 the contents of which have been translated in Mandarin, a language, they understand, I am inclined to accept the latter’s position to be more probable. 520 [52] I hold such a view because the 11 Applicants’ position is self-serving and rather contradictory. If the papers are indeed blank how did each and every one of their finger or thumb prints make their way onto the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021, which are the prescribed forms, exactly at the correct places for signatures. 525 [53] The 11 Applicants were in detention at the time the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 and could easily have been served with the same. 530 [54] Even if they had not been served, it was admitted by learned counsel for the 11 Applicants, Mr. Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh, that the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 were all exhibited to an affidavit, and served upon the solicitors for the 11 Applicants, Messrs Bachan & Kartar on 10 February 2022. 535 [55] Therefore, it is indisputable that the decision to cancel their passes as set out in each of the Notices of Cancellation dated 31 December 2021 have been communicated to them, at the very latest through their said solicitors, on 10 February 2022. 540 [56] Knowledge of the said solicitors would be imputed upon their clients, see Overseas Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v. Lee Tan Hwa (Goh Ah Chwee & Anor, Interveners [1989] 1 MLJ 261 and Yap Kok Ming v. Machang Timber Sdn Bhd (Company No. 054818m) (Formerly Known 545 As Weeluk Corporation Sdn Bhd [1999] 1 LNS 48, more so, when the alleged wrongful cancellation of the visit passes have featured in both the MT2 Habeas Corpus Application and the MT3 Criminal Revision Proceedings. 550 [57] Indeed, as at 10 February 2022, their said solicitors were in the midst of: i) the MT2 Habeas Corpus Application which commenced on 31 December 2021 (Enclosure 2 page 93) (see Zhang Junmei & Yang Lain lwn Pengarah Imigresen Negeri Jabatan 555 Imigresen Malaysia Negeri Perak & Yang Lain [2022] 1 LNS 1429) ; and ii) the MT3 Criminal Revision Proceedings which was commenced on 4 February 2022 (see Zhang Junmei & Ors v. PP [2022] 1 LNS 554). 560 [58] The MT2 Habeas Corpus Application ended with an order in favour of the Applicants on 12 May 2022 (Enclosure 2 page 93). [59] The MT3 Criminal Revision Proceedings did not end in their favour 565 with an order made on 31 March 2022 (see Zhang Junmei & Ors v. PP [2022] 1 LNS 554). [60] In both the MT2 Habeas Corpus Application and the MT3 Criminal Revision Proceedings, references were made to the Notices of Cancellation 570 of 31 December 2021 to the effect that their visit passes have been cancelled. [61] As from 31 December 2021 when the 11 Applicants commenced the MT2 Habeas Corpus Application, they were represented by their said 575 solicitors who, as can be seen from the proceedings filed, have no problems in communicating with them, taking instructions, filing applications, submissions and even filing an affidavit on their behalf (Enclosure 18). [62] A perusal of the Affidavits filed by the 11 Applicants (Enclosure 2), as 580 well as that affirmed by the First Applicant on behalf of all the other Applicants (Enclosures 15 and 22), and that affirmed by Mr. Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh (Enclosure 18) do not yield any reason given for the delay in filing the MT3 Judicial Review Proceedings save to repeat that they have not been served with the notices and told of the decision to cancel 585 the passes on 31 December 2021. [63] To seal their fate, there was no reason given as to why they did not bestir themselves to file judicial review proceedings within the prescribed time when the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021 were 590 [admittedly] at the very least, communicated to them, through their said solicitors on 10 February 2022, and they have reproduced them in their Affidavit (Enclosure 2 pages 77 to 87). Conclusion 595 [64] Wherefore, in my considered view, I find that both the applications in Enclosures 1 and 14 fail in limine and even if the challenge is towards the Notices of Cancellation of 31 December 2021, the 11 Applicants are out of time in commencing their application for leave to apply for an Order of 600 Certiorari and I find that there is no reasonable explanation to support their application for an extension of time to do so, and bound by inter alia a plethora of authorities including the Federal Court authority of Wong Kin Hoong & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor (supra), I dismissed both the application Enclosures 14 and 1 with costs of 605 RM6,000.00. [65] For the sake of completeness, an application for extension of time is normally heard inter partes, see Order 53 rule 3 (8) ROC (supra)). In this case, the learned SFC informed the Court that he is acting only for the AGC 610 and was present to assist the Court (“bantu the court”). Even if the Respondents are not present, it is settled law that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent let alone by default, see for e.g. Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 CLJ 177 (FC) at paragraph [61]; Badan Peguam Malaysia v Kerajaan Malaysia 615 [2009] 1 CLJ 833 (FC) at paragraph [10]. Dated: 29 November 2022 Su Tiang Joo 620 ( SU TIANG JOO ) Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya Ipoh, Perak 625 For Applicants no 1-11 : Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh (together with Noor Harisha bt Zakaria) [Messrs Bachan & Kartar] 630 For Respondents : Muhammad Fauzi Bin Md Yusof [Perak State Legal Advisor Offices] 635 [Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision] Headnotes 640 Administrative law – Order 53 rule 3 (6) Rules of Court 2012 date of admitted service of the impugned decision upon the applicants’ solicitors is deemed to be the date the impugned decision was communicated to the applicants for purposes as to when the time limited for leave to apply for judicial review 645 commences