Ruddy Hasmawie Bin Mohamad v Pertubuhan Peladang Kebangsaan (BA-25-25-03/2024)

This application for judicial review stems from the decision of the respondent in dismissing the applicant from employment.

At the outset, this judicial review application is out of time. The applicant had sought an extension of time to abridge the time lapse. The putative respondent opposed the application for extension of time.

This court will first consider the application for extension of time prior to deciding on the application for leave to commence judicial review.

The procedures relating to an application for judicial review is provided for in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. Pertaining to the time frame to file an application for judicial review, Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides as reproduced below: any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the

Order 53 Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of Court 2012 states that an application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.

Pertaining to the time in which an applicant is required to file an application, the Court of Appeal in case of Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 CLJ 123 held as follows: but conjunctive. e date when the ascertainable date. It imposes an obligation on the decision maker to make a decision, and to then communicate the decision. This is an integral part of the decision making process. That date when ascertained, and upon expiration of the prescribed time frame, The intention of the rules clearly is that it is in the public interest that an [Emphasis added]

What this entails is that the applicant is required to observe the strict time line which is provided for in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. The need for a strict and stringent adherence to the time period 4 which has been provided in Order 53 Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of Court 2012 is meant to ensure the public authority has finality in their decision. It is intended to protect those entrusted with the enforcement of public duties against groundless harassment and to reduce delays in resolving applications in the interest of good administration. [See: Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 5 CLJ 865 and Ketua Pengarah Kastam Dan Eksais v. Coach Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2019] 4 CLJ 454]

Nonetheless, the Rules of Court 2012 make provision for the court to grant an extension of time to file the judicial review application should there be a good reason for the court to do so. In this regard, reference is made to Order 53 Rule 3 (7) of the Rules of Court 2012 which states as reproduced below:

Therefore, premised on Order 53 rule 3 (7) of the Rules of Court 2012, it is incumbent on this court to determine whether there is a good reason for this court to allow the extension of time sought by the applicant.

What are the facts of this application? The applicant had received the letter of termination of contract and/or the surat pembatalan on 25.8.2022 and/or 23.8.2022.

This application for judicial review was filed on 27.3.2024. There is a substantial delay of approximately 1 year 7 months in filing this application for judicial review.

The applicant explained this delay to the court. In short, the applicant stated that the applicant had on 6.10.2022 filed a report at the Industrial Relations Department. There were negotiations between parties which failed.

Court. The Industrial Court had on 16.10.2023 dismissed the plicant was employed by a statutory body.

This judicial review application was then filed on 27.3.2024, more than 5 months (5 months 11 days) after the decision of the Industrial Court.

This delay in filing the application for judicial review was explained by the applicant as due to the fact that the applicant had to seek and appoint a lawyer and that the applicant was ignorant of the law.

To consider this issue, this court alluded to the case of Deva Dass a/l Sundaraj v. Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang & Anor [2021] 1 LNS 91 where the court held as follows: Ignorance of the law, as we know, is not an acceptable excuse.

I also do not consider the responsibilities of making a living, attending to family obligations and falling ill occasionally to be good reasons. They are part and parcel to everyday life. [12] Even if I were to accept this as good reasons (which I do not), they only account for brief delay and do not explain his failure to act within the 3 months that he had and the 5 months 9 days that

Pertaining to ignorance of the law, this court had in Yuslie bin Mohd Yusop v Pertubuhan Peladang Kebangsaan [2023] MLJU 340 decided that the ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Similarly, in this application for extension of time, this court finds that the ignorance of the law is not a good excuse for this court to allow this application for extension of time.

However, the applicant did say delay was also caused as the applicant required time to find and appoint a lawyer to take on his case and file this application for judicial review.

Nonetheless, the applicant in his affidavit in support and in this affidavit in reply did not give details as to the delay in the appointment of his lawyer. There is no mention of the exact date the lawyer was appointed. There is no letter of appointment of the lawyer exhibited There was no evidence before this court to substantiate the claim that the delay was also caused due to the need to appoint a lawyer. In this sense, the delay, in the view of this court was not explained in detail. Instead, the delay in filing this application was explained by simply stating that 7 time was required to appoint a lawyer but no evidence was before this court to support his contention.

This court hence finds this to not be a good reason to allow the extension of time for this application for judicial review. As there is no extension of time granted by this court, it follows that this application for judicial review is out of time. There is therefore, no valid application for judicial review before this court. This application for leave to commence judicial review is dismissed. No order as to costs. Date: 22 April 2025 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For the appellant Amirul Syafiq bin Jamsari Tetuan Puvarasan & Associates Advocates & Solicitors 19-1, Jalan BBN 6/3, Desa Cempaka, Putra Nilai, 71800 Nilai, Negeri Sembilan puvarasanassociates@gmail.com/ puvarasanbalaiyah@gmail.com +6012-4417119 For the Respondent: Masitah binti Alias Tetuan Hazidin Chan 01-01, Seri Bukit Ceylon, 8 Lorong Ceylon, off Jalan Raja Chulan, 50200 Kuala Lumpur contact@hazidinchan.com +603 2072 9886