Subsection
(4). The applicant in this application for judicial review is neither the owner nor a tenant or occupant in the said building. There is no evidence before this court to demonstrate how or in what manner the applicant has been adversely affected. [13] This court made reference to the case of Malaysian Trade Union Congress & Ors v Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor {2014] 3 MLJ 145 where the court held: “In our view for an applicant to pass “adversely affected” test, the applicant has to at least show he has real and genuine interest in the subject matter” [14] In the considered view of this court, the applicant is not a person adversely affected who has a real and genuine interest in the subject matter. Hence, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit to this ground. [15] The subsequent raised by the applicant is that the Notice was against the rules of natural justice. In support of this argument, it was submitted that there was no meeting with all relevant parties. To consider this ground, this court made reference to section 83 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. From a perusal of the said section, there is no requirement for a meeting with all parties involved. Even if there was a meeting held, this court is not convinced the applicant would be a party to the meeting. [16] Furthermore, this court is of the view that in the event a meeting with parties involved were to be held prior to the issuance of the Notice, such a meeting would take time to be organised. In a circumstance such as this where the safety of the occupants and users of the building may be at risk, it is even more pertinent that the respondents act swiftly. [17] Nonetheless, the respondents had around November 2017 been given a copy of the report of Tetuan Perunding TrussMaju who were appointed by the Tan Lian Hor, the landowner who developed the property with the applicant. Together with this report, the applicant was given a report by AMAS FM Consultant Sdn Bhd as building surveyors who confirmed the damage to the said buildings. [18] Around October and November 2018, another report was sent to the applicant by Ir Dr Tan Kuang Leong stating that the building was not fit for occupation. On 3.1.2019, the respondent sent a letter to the applicant informing the applicant of the condition of the building which was not safe for occupation and sought the applicant’s response. When no response or feedback was forthcoming from the applicant, the respondent issued the Notice. Hence, this court is of the considered view there is no merit to the ground that the Notice was against the rules of natural justice as there was no meeting held with relevant parties. [19] Relating to the ground of substantial injustice to all parties affected (applicant, shop owners, tenants), this was a ground raised by the applicant. In the considered view of this court, the applicant has failed to demonstrate to this court how the applicant is an adversely affected person under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. Hence, this court does not consider the applicant as an adversely affected person under Order 53of the Rules of Court 2012. This court takes cognizance of the fact that no shop owner or tenant filed an application for judicial review. [20] Furthermore, this court agrees with the contention of the respondent that the application for extension of time filed by the applicant should have been served on the respondents and be heard inter parte. In this regard, reference is made to Order 53 rule 3 (8) of the Rules of Court 2012. Decision [21] In the final analysis, this court is not convinced that the respondent had committed an error which would enable this court to order a relief of certiorari. (see: Hotel Equatorial (M) Sdn Bhd v National Union of Hotel Bar & Restaurant Workers & Anor [1984] 1 MLJ 363) [22] For the abovementioned reasons, this court is of the considered view there is no merit to this application. Consequentially, this application is dismissed with costs of RM 3000.00. Date: 19 September 2022 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For the applicant : R K Sharma, Chua Li Li Tetuan Lily Chua & Associates No. 65-1-10, Fadason Business Centre, Jalan 1/17, Taman Fadason, 52000 Kuala Lumpur. lilychua.associates@gmail.com +6 03 6731 7673 For the respondent : Mohamed Ibrahim bin K P Kunji Mohamad Tetuan Ibrahim & Fuaadah No. 12F, Jalan Bidara 8, SU Mall, Saujana Utama 3, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor info@ibrahimfuaadah.my +6 03 6038 8164