The applicant is still carrying on business without a commercial licence issued by the licensing authority of the local government. [38] The applicant argues that this application for judicial review should be allowed on the grounds of irrationality. [39] The applicant submitted that pursuant to the Appeal Board’s Order 11 April 2013 second judicial review order, COA Order 4 August 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Three Orders”), all the relevant considerations have been taken into account by the Appeal Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal in arriving at the decision that the applicant’s business activity did not contravene the Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya 1 (Pengubahan 1) ant the Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya 1 (Pengubahan 3). [40] It was contended by the applicant that the respondent’s decision that states the applicant’s business activity contravened Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya (Pengubahan 1) and Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya (Pengubahan 3) as a justification to deny the applicant’s application to renew the licence for year 2021 is manifestly unreasonable and irrational. [41] The applicant submitted that the respondent having renewed the licence for the year 2020 pursuant to the COA Order 4 August 2020 whilst rejecting the renewal of the licence of year 2021, has shown inconsistency in its decision which cannot be reconciled with logic and common sense. [42] The applicant argued that the respondent is estopped from raising or repeating the issue that the applicant’s business activity contravened Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya 1 (Pengubahan 3) as it would amount to another attempt by the respondent to re-litigate the issue which have been concurrently upheld by both the High Court and Court of Appeal in that the applicant’s business activity did not contravene Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya 1 (Pengubahan 1) and (Pengubahan 3) which were all in favour of the applicant. [43] Hence, the applicant stated that the respondent’s decision is wrong, unreasonable, irrational and without any valid and reasonable justification. The respondent had thus taken into account irrelevant consideration and had failed to take into account relevant considerations especially the Three Orders when arriving at the decision to refuse renewal of the licence for year 2021 in favor of the applicant. [44] To consider this contention by the applicant, the question therefore is whether the three orders relate to this application for judicial review. [45] According to the respondent the three orders are irrelevant to this judicial review as it is unrelated to the decision making process of the Licensing Authority. The applicant’s reliance on what they termed the Three Orders is erroneous. For clarity, the first order refer to the Appeal Board Order dated 11 April 2013, second order refers to the second judicial review order and third order refers to COA Order 4 August 2020. [46] The respondent disagreed with the applicant’s submissions that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld that the applicant’s business activity did not contravene RTPJ 1 Pengubahan 3. This cannot be found in the COA order. [47] The first order relates not to the issuance of business licence under the Licensing bylaws but for the rejection of Kebenaran Merancang pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act. This is an old case decided in year 2013. This case involves different parties and different local plan which was repealed by RTPJ 1 Pengubahan 3. [48] The second order although relates to the renewal of business licence, it is also irrelevant as the business licence in issue in that case was for the year 2015. [49] On the mandamus order to “mengarahkan responden untuk membayar dan memperbaharui lesen tred bagi tahun-tahun yang berikutnya”, the third order by the COA dated 4 August 2020 varied it to “Lesen Tred Perniagaan dan Perindustrian ke akhir tahun 2020”. [50] In this case, the local plan in issue was RTPJ 1 Pengubahan 2 which was later repealed by RTPJ Pengubahan 3 in 2019. In our current judicial review, the local plan that was referred to by the Licensing Authority in rejecting the renewal is RTPJ 1 Pengubahan 3. [51] The third order 4 August 2020 relates to the validity of the business licence until year 2020 and is academic and irrelevant to the issue in question. Legitimate Expectation [52] The applicant submitted that the applicant has a legitimate expectation for the Licence for the year 2021 to be renewed as the nature and type of the business the applicant was carrying out was the same. [53] The respondent argued that there is no legitimate expectation on the part of the applicant. This is because there cannot be legitimate expectation as it cannot contravene the statutory provision [See: YKK (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Johor [2021] 8 CLJ 179]. [54] In this judicial review, the licensing authority or the respondent is statutorily empowered to grant a commercial licence. The power to grant a commercial licence lies with the respondent. It is the respondent that determines this, based on the statutory provision. In the view of this court, there is no legitimate expectation in this case as the decision lies with the respondent and there has been no expressed promised made by the respondent to the applicant. Application is Academic [55] The respondent argued that this judicial review is academic. To this end, the respondent submitted that this judicial review is to impugn the decision making process of the Licensing Authority in rejecting the application for the renewal of the applicant’s business licence for the year 2021. [56] The fact of this judicial review is that the licence was granted until 31 December 2020. This is in accordance with the court order dated 4 August 2020 which reads: “3) Perintah Mandamus oleh Perayu terhadap Responden adalah terhad kepada pembaharuan/pengisuan Lesen Tres perniagaan dari No 64 ke No 58 Jalan University, Petaling Jaya, Selangor dibenarkan setakat akhir tahun 2020” [57] Founded on the paragraph quoted above from the decision of the Court of Appeal, it is plain and apparent to this court that the respondent was expected to renew the licence of the applicant until the year 2020. This is obvious from the wordings “setakat akhir tahun 2020”. The respondent complied with this order. [58] The applicant is now contending that the order is for the year 2020 and beyond. The refusal of the respondent to issue a licence to the applicant is seen by the applicant as in contravention of the Court of Appeal order dated 4 August 2020. [59] Respectfully, this court cannot agree with the argument by the applicant. The words of the Court of Appeal order dated 4 August 2020 should be given its plain and obvious meaning. In the considered view of this court, this means the licence is to be renewed until 2020. Any licence beyond 2020 is up to the approval of the licensing authority. Conclusion [60] For the aforesaid reasons, this court is satisfied there is no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety which would enable this court to allow this application for judicial review. This application is therefore dismissed with costs of RM6,000.00 subject to allocator. Date: 28 May 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For The Applicant: Ringo Low Kim Leng, Julian Low Tian-Cong, Tetuan Ringo Low & Associates Advocates & Solicitors D-03-03, Phileo Damansara 1, Off jalan Damansara, 46350 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. ringo@ringolow.com.my +6 03 7957 8778 For the Respondent: Kamaruzaman bin Muhammad Arif, Sofiah Omar Tetuan Kamaruzaman Arif & Sofiah Advocates & Solicitors Crystal Chambers, No. 4, Jalan Kristal 7/67A, Seksyen 7, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. kamarsofiah@gmail.com +6 03 5524 1924