Glomics Tower Sdn Bhd v Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (BA-25-67-08/2025)

Vide Enclosure 1, the Applicant prays for leave to file for Judicial Review for an order of certiorari to quash the Respondent’s Arahan Bertulis dated 12.12.2023. They also pray for an extension of time to file this application.

After careful consideration of the cause papers and submissions on behalf of the Applicants and the Honourable Attorney General Malaysia (AG), this Court allowed the AG’s objection and dismissed Enclosure 1. The following is the reasons for the decision.

The Applicant filed this application on 19.8.2025 to challenge the Arahan Bertulis issued by the Respondent. The said Direction imposed charges exceeding RM3.28 million as a condition for planning permission in respect of Lot PT 9, Seksyen 52, Persiaran Barat, Mukim Petaling Jaya.

The Applicant contends, amongst others, that the Respondent –

acted contrary to the Streets, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133), the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) and the Development Charge (Amendment) Rules 2021 in imposing the charges;

(ii) failed to account for earlier payments that they had made; and

(iii) acted ultra vires by imposing charges for several of the items.

The Applicant issued several letters to the Respondent disputed the charges and seeking clarification. The Respondent maintained its position in their letters 12.1.2024 and 20.5.2025, justifying the charges.

The Applicant seeks an extension of time to file this application stating the delay (if any) was occasioned by the parties' attempts to resolve the matter through negotiations, which only concluded upon the Respondent’s final rejection letter in their letter dated 20.5.2025. AG’s objection - time

The AG objected to Enclosure 1, arguing that the application was filed out of time contrary to O.53 r.3 (6) Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and that the Applicant had failed to provide good reasons for allowing the extension of time.

In response, the Applicant submitted that the Arahan Bertulis was not a final decision as parties continued to negotiate thereafter.

They pointed to their letter dated 9.1.2025 which referred to a meeting held on 12.11.2024 wherein the Applicant was asked to obtain an independent valuation report for the Respondent’s consideration. This, they argued confirms that there were negotiations and the Respondent was estopped from raising the issue of delay.

The Applicant referred to Abd Mutalib @ Puteh Mohd Ali lwn. Lembaga Tatatertib Majlis & Yang Lain [2016] 1 LNS 954 wherein Mohd Yazid Haji Mustaffa held at para [13] – “Saya mendapati undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa Mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 3(7) KKM 2012 untuk membenarkan lanjutan masa dalam pemfailan permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman sekiranya mahkamah berpendapat bahawa terdapat alasan-alasan yang kukuh untuk berbuat demikian. Untuk mahkamah melaksanakan budi bicaranya, Mahkamah harus mengambil kira asas permohonan Pemohon dalam tindakan ini agar pihak-pihak mendapat pertimbangan sewajarnya dan tidak diprejudiskan.” Principles of law regarding Judicial Review

O.53 ROC sets out a specific procedure for applying for reliefs under the First Schedule Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91). In particular, O.53 r.3(6) ROC reads – “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”

This provision has been examined by the apex Court in several cases and the dicta is clear and binds this Court. In Wong Kin Hoong & Anor (Suing For Themselves And On Behalf All Of The Occupants Of Kampung Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang) v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor [2013] 4 MLJ 161 wherein Raus Sharif PCA (as His Lordship then was) held at 171 – “The time frame in applying for judicial review prescribed by the Rules was 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 leave for judicial review. Whether the application has merits or not, is irrelevant.” (Pengarah Kastam Negeri Johor & Anor v. Kedai Makan Kebun Teh (Sutera Utama) Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2014] 3 CLJ 733 at 739, Ravindran P. Muthukrishnan v. Malaysian Examination Council [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 320 at held [2]).

This Court has no jurisdiction to hear any application that is filed outside this time frame and must disregard the merits of the application.

From the cause papers, it is clear that the Applicant is aggrieved by the imposition of the charges. For purposes of computing time mandated under O.53 r.3(6) ROC the grounds to challenge the Arahan Bertulis first arose either when –

the Arahan Bertulis was issued to the Applicant on 12.12.2023 or

(ii) it was first communicated to the Applicant, which they did not disclose in their affidavit.

There is nothing in the letters issued by the Respondent to indicate there were negotiations. In their letter dated 12.1.2024, they clarified that the Arahan Bertulis served to notify the Applicant of the condition’s precedent for the issuance of the Borang C1, as these requirements must be incorporated into the layout plan.

If time were computed from any one of these dates, Enclosure 1 is clearly out of time.

In their letter dated 20.5.2025, the Respondent enclosed the Selangor State Appeal Board’s grounds of decision and once again that clarified the imposition of the charges was pursuant to Act 172.

Contrary to the Applicant’s contention, the Court finds that that letter is not a decision nor a final rejection. Extension of time

An application for extension of time for judicial review proceedings is governed by O.53 r.3(7) ROC reads – “The Court may, upon an application, extend the time specified in rule 4(1) and if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so.”

In their affidavit in support, the Applicant averred – “Seterusnya, Pemohon dengan rendah diri memohon kepada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini untuk memberikan lanjutan masa (jika didapati perlu) di bawah Aturan 3 Kaedah 5 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi tujuan kepentingan keadilan untuk memfailkan permohonan ini, memandangkan pihak-pihak masih terlibat dalam perbincangan susulan selepas pengeluaran Arahan Bertulis tersebut sehinggalah 20.5.2025 untuk mencari satu jalan penyelesaian. Walau bagaimanapun, saya telah dinasihati oleh peguamcara Pemohon dan sesungguhnya percaya bahawa Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman ini telah difailkan dalam masa yang sewajarnya memandangkan ia telah dibuat oleh Pemohon dalam tempoh tiga (3) bulan daripada penolakan terakhir Responden iaitu 20.5.2025.”