Ali Nur Fitri Bin Yazid v Lembaga Tatatertib Kontinjen Selangor (BA-25-27-05/2021)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-27-05/2021 Dalam perkara mengenai pembuangan kerja Lans Koperal ALI NUR FITRI BIN YAZID (No. K/P: 850620-14-5747) (RF/179123). Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Peraturan-Peraturan 4(2)(g), 24, 37, 38(g) 52 Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) (Pindaan) 2002 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 Dan Dalam perkara Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis DiRaja Malaysia Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Akta Spesifik Relif 1950 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Dan Dalam perkara Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 Dan Dalam perkara Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia Perkara 132, 140 dan 144. 22/03/2023 09:19:05 Kand. 44 ANTARA ALI NUR FITRI BIN YAZID (No. K/P: 850620-14-5747) …PEMOHON DAN LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN SELANGOR …RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT [1] This is an application by the applicant, Ali Nur Fitri bin Yazid for reinstatement of the application for judicial review and an extension of time for the application for judicial review. [Enclosure 23] Salient Facts [2] On 5.5.2021, the applicant filed an application for judicial review. The Attorney General objected to the application for leave for judicial review on the ground of wrongly named party. [3] The applicant then sought to amend the application by inserting ‘Lembaga Tatatertib Kontinjen Selangor’ as a respondent. [4] On 8.10.2021, parties attended case management before the judge. During the case management, the applicant sought to amend the judicial review application by removing and substituting the previously named respondents with ‘Lembaga Tatatertib Kontinjen Selangor’ as the respondent and also removed reliefs 1 (g), (h), (i),

Preamble

Pursuant to the said amendments, the Attorney General had no objection to the application for leave of the judicial review. This court had then granted leave to the judicial review application with the said amendments. [6] On 10.11.2021, parties attended case management before the Deputy Registrar. At that time, the applicant has yet to file the Notice of Hearing of Application for Judicial Review (Form 110) under Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. [7] On 18.11.2021, the applicant’s solicitors had filed notice of discontinuance and served the same to the respondent. Analysis and Findings [8] The facts before this court is that the notice of discontinuance was filed by the previous solicitors on 18.11.2021. With regard to the notice of discontinuance filed by the previous solicitors, whether or not the applicant did or did not instruct the then solicitors is something beyond this court’s knowledge. [9] This court observes leave was allowed by this court on 8.10.2021. [10] Order 53 rule 4 (1) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that Form 110 must be filed within 14 days from the date leave is obtained. That would mean Form 110 should have been filed at the very latest by 22.10.2021. [11] In this case, Form 110 was not filed within the prescribed 14 days (from leave obtained) pursuant to Order 53 rule 4 (1) of the Rules of Court 2012. As there was no Form 110 filed within 14 days of leave obtained, the application for judicial review had lapsed. Hence, this court finds there is no application for judicial review before this court. In the view of this court, Form 110 which was filed by the applicant on 30.11.2021 is not valid and should be disregarded. [12] When the notice of discontinuance was filed by previous solicitors on 18.11.2021, there was no pending judicial review application before this court as Form 110 had not been filed. [13] With regards to the notice of discontinuance filed by the previous solicitors on 18.11.2021, Order 21 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that a party may not discontinue an action without the leave of the court. In this regard, the applicant had filed the notice of discontinuance on 18.11.2021 and attended case management on the same day informing the court of the notice to discontinue the action against the respondent. The court had given its leave to the said notice. The notice had been processed and both parties had been given the order that the case is closed. [14] Pertaining to the application to reinstate the judicial review application and the extension of time, this court referred to Order 53 rule 3 (7) of the Rules of Court 2012. Premised on Order 53 rule 3