in the case of any subsequent revision, not so as to have effect before the expiry of a period of ten years beginning with the most recent date as from which any rents in the State were revised under this section. [19] As alluded to, the preceding revision of the quit rent was made in 2004 vide the JLR 2004 while the recent prevision was done 15 years thereafter vide the JLR 2020. Besides that, the NLC does not require any additional procedure or condition except the revision must be done __________________________________________________________________________________ 8 not less than 10 years after the preceding revision. Since the SA is duly authorised to make the revision and all procedures have been complied with, I find there is no illegality on the gazette of the JLR 2020 and as such the rates in the quit rent are also valid. Issue of irrationality [20] In CCSU v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935, Lord Diplock explained the concept of "irrationality" as follows: "By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp (1974) 2 All ER 680; (1948) 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the court's exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in Edwards (Inspector of Taxed) v. Bairstow (1955) 3 All ER 48; (1956) AC 14 of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by the decision-maker. 'Irrationality' by now can stand on its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review. [21] In the present case, the Respondents chose the rate based on the rate designated for “Airport – Building” under paragraph B20.8.1 which imposes the rate at RM167.00 per 100 square metre or part thereof. [22] In explaining the rationale in choosing this calculation, the Respondents narrated the historical background on how the previous __________________________________________________________________________________ 9 quit rent was imposed. The Respondents admitted that there was a mistake in imposing the rate on the Land before. This led the rate imposed was very low. This can be seen in a letter dated 1.7.2020 sent by the 2nd Respondent to the Director General of Land and Mines as the owner of the Land explaining the mistake. I reproduce the letter for ease of reference – __________________________________________________________________________________ 10 __________________________________________________________________________________ 11 [23] Based on the explanation in the letter, it is not surprising that there is a significant difference between the previous rate and that imposed in 2020. [24] Upon scrutinizing the facts, I find that although there was a mistake done by the Respondents in calculating the rate imposed on the Land which led the SA lost a huge amount of quit rent, the Respondents did not claim the difference in the form of outstanding charge or tax. Instead, it was left to be enjoyed by the Applicant. [25] Since the Land has the express condition as “NIL” on it, it is trite that the Land can be utilized to the maximum namely as the commercial development on which the SA may impose the maximum rate of quit rent. __________________________________________________________________________________ 12 Thus, according to the new rate, the rate payable is RM588.00 per 100 square metre or part thereof. If this rate is imposed, the rent would be 51436 square metre x RM588.00 = RM30,244,368.00. [26] Nonetheless, I find the SA has created a specific category namely “Land Building – General – Airport – Building” with the rate is far below that is RM167.00 per 100 square metre or part thereof. Thus, the rate imposed on the Land was 51436 square metre x RM167.00 = RM8,589,812.00. This amount is only 28.4% of the rate payable on the land for commercial development. [27] Another issue raised by the Applicant is that the application of rate under category of “Land Building – General – Airport – Building” by the Respondents is irrational as the airport buildings occupy approximately only 3% of the overall use of the Land. [28] In this context, Syed Muhammad Khalil bin Syed Ahmad (Chief Assistant Director of Land Revenue) in his Affidavit in Reply in Enclosure 35 explained that the Land comprises of the following activities and components: Activity/component Area in square metre a. airport building 142,000 b. Senai Airport Terminal 59,000 c. Senai Airport Aviation Park 81,000 d. Senai Business Aviation Terminal 2,000 e. runway 2,230,000 f. undeveloped area 1,705,000 g. industrial zone 400,000 __________________________________________________________________________________ 13 h. Commercial zone 47,200 i. Cargo and warehouse 82,400 g. undeveloped area 213,100 [29] He also stated that since all the activities and components in the Land are lumped in one title and the Land bears “Nil” conditions, the calculation is based on the category of “Land Building – General – Airport – Building”. The calculation would be different if the Land is subdivided according to activities or components. [30] It has to be noted that the test for irrationality or unreasonableness was pioneered by Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223; (1947) 2 All ER 680 which succinctly explained it as follows: Theoretically it is true to say - and in practice it may operate in some cases - that, if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere. That, I think, is right, but that would require overwhelming proof, and in this case the facts do not come anywhere near such a thing. [31] In light of above, it is clear that the new rate imposed is not irrational or unreasonable taking into consideration of the activities and components on the Land together with the comparison with the rate imposed previously as well as the explanation given by the Respondents. Issue of proportionality [32] In explaining the concept of proportionality, the Federal Court in R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court [1997] 1 CLJ 147; [1997] 1 MLJ 145, FC had quoted an Indian case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India AIR __________________________________________________________________________________ 14 1987 SC 2386, where the quantum of punishment imposed by a Court Martial was in issue. Venkatchalia J speaking for the Supreme Court said this (at p. 2392): The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review would ensure that even on an aspect which is otherwise within the exclusive province of the Court Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence should not be immune from correction. [33] It is trite that in deciding on the issue of proportionality, the court has to look at the reasonable relation between the objective which is sought to be achieved and the means used to that end. Under this principle, the court has to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the administrative actions and only allow them if the balance tilts to advantages. [34] In our present case, as alluded to, previously the quit rent for airport buildings was RM119.00 per square metre or part thereof while this time it was increased to RM167.00 per square metre or part thereof. As for the runway, from RM175.00 per hectare, it was increased to RM263.00 per square metre or part thereof. This increase is as much as 28.74% and 33.46% for airport buildings and runways respectively. This amount of increase, in my view, is not excessive. [35] It has to be noted that the revision of the quit rent does not involve the Land alone but covers all land throughout the state of Johor and majority of the increase is below 50% from the previous rates. __________________________________________________________________________________ 15 [36] Needless to say, compared to the federal government which is given the powers to collect more and extensive taxes, the powers of the state authorities in this regard are very few and limited as enumerated in