ERAKA NAIDU A/L SANNACY v Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (BA-25-59-07/2025)

Enclosure 1 prayer 2 is the application for a stay of any action by the Respondent to demolish the guard house and boom gate I the Residential Area pending the disposal of the Applican The Applicant obtained leave on 4.9.2025.

After careful consideration of the cause papers and the oral and written submissions of the parties, this Court decided to dismiss S/N 6z95wrp1IUqWtVcB06n4nA the application for stay in prayer 2 of Enclosure

The following are the reasons for the decision. Background facts

The Applicant represents residents of a residential area iencompassing Jalan Tasik Prima 4/2, Jalan Tasik Prima 4/2A, Jalan Tasik Prima 4/3, Jalan Tasik Prima 4/4 and Jalan Tasik Prima 4/4A in Casadia Lake Vista, Taman Tasik Prima, 47150 Puchong, Selangor Darul Ehsan (Residential Area).

The Applicant filed an application for judicial review to challenge the rejecting the re to operate a gated guarded scheme in the Residential Area. The Applicant maintains that they have complied with all the guidelines for a gated guarded community. This included obtaining the consent of 77.5% of the residents contrary to the vide letter dated 28.4.2025. Stay application

In his affidavit in support of the application (Enclosure 2), the Applicant averred that the residents built the guardhouse and boom gate in 2015. The Applicant uses the subscription from the residents to maintain security services for the Residential Area. S/N 6z95wrp1IUqWtVcB06n4nA

The Applicant argued that the guard house and the boom gate should be stayed pending the hearing of the substantive application as it caused no prejudice to the Respondent.

The Respondent objected to the application contending that the nly in respect of the rejection of their application to be a gated guarded community. The notice to demolish the guard house and boom gate was independent of that application and the Applicant never challenged the notice.

The construction of the guard house and boom gate was done by-laws. Analysis and findings

Lordship then was) dicta Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd v. Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257; [2003] 4 CLJ 1 wherein His Lordship held

the paramount consideration governing an application for a stay of execution was that the appeal, if successful, should not be rendered nugatory; S/N 6z95wrp1IUqWtVcB06n4nA

(ii) if upon balancing all the relevant factors, the Court concluded that an appeal would be rendered nugatory without the grant of a stay or other interim preservation order, then it should normally direct a stay or grant other appropriate relief that has the effect of maintaining the status quo;

(iii) there are many factors that may constitute special circumstances and the merits of a case in a stay application is not a relevant matter for consideration; and

(iv) the onus was on the applicants to demonstrate the existence of special circumstances to justify the grant of a stay of execution.

In the context of judicial review proceedings, a stay to maintain the status quo is warranted to ensure that the Applicant is not denied the full benefit of a successful challenge.

In Islamic Financial Services Board v. Marlin Fairol Mohd Farouque & Anor [2010] 8 CLJ 173, Mohamad Ariff Yusof J (as His Lordship then was) held [4] I indicated in my decision that stay of in the context of judicial review has a special connotation, and, although there could be overlaps in standards applied, judicial review stay is not the same as stay of execution after judgment in judicial proceedings. The wide import of judicial S/N 6z95wrp1IUqWtVcB06n4nA review stay has been recognized as well in YAM Tunku Seri Nadzaruddin lbni Tuanku Jaafar v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2003] 1 CLJ 210: The phrase stay of must have a wider application. It does not confine to proceedings in court only. Today, many applications for judicial review are for orders of certiorari to quash decisions of decision making bodies other than courts, including Government Ministers, local authorities and other bodies whose decisions are susceptible to judicial review. Thus the phrase a stay of in relation to such bodies must mean stay of the process by which the decision challenged has been reached, including the decision itself. [5] See also Sugumar Balakrishnan v. Pengarah Imigresen Negeri Sabah & Anor & Another Appeal [1998] 3 CLJ 85, where the Court of Appeal explained the effect of a stay as "temporarily suspending the effect of a public law decision pending the outcome of certiorari or prohibition proceedings brought to challenge the validity of the particular decision."

In the context of this application, this Court agrees with the Respondent that the notice to demolish the guard house and boom gate is independent of the rejection of the application. The Applicant did not challenge the notice and therefore are precluded from bring that notice under the purview of this application. S/N 6z95wrp1IUqWtVcB06n4nA S/N 6z95wrp1IUqWtVcB06n4nA For the Applicant: Surendra Ananth Tetuan Surendra Ananth For the Respondent: Tan Weng Hung Gary Au Kar Meng Tetuan Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners S/N 6z95wrp1IUqWtVcB06n4nA