DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR v ZAIN AZAHARI [1997] 2 MLJ 17

Facts: The appellant who was the Mayor of the city of Kuala Lumpur approved the development application of Tradium Sdn Bhd (Tradium) and granted Tradium the approval in erecting a three-storey building on its land, thus it increased the population density of the locality. The respondent who was an adjacent landowner occupying a single family dwelling on his property, challenged the order of the appellant by applying certiorari to the High Court. The appellant appealed and stated that the High Court reasoning was wrong as every time a planning application made would cause all development in Kuala Lumpur to grind to a halt as the delays that making a rule and gazetting the same would cause. On the other hand, the respondent contended that in favour of the ruling of the High Court in relying on s22 of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 (the Act), it deals with the power and discretion of the appellant in granting planning approval. It cited that the failure of the appellant in submitting an affidavit setting out his reasoning for granting the planning approval, and also the lack of admissible evidence to explain his failure to submit the same. The appellant contended that it was his function but not the court to determine the planning of Kuala Lumpur as he is the person suited to carry out this task.

Held: Based on s22 and s 2(3) of the Act, it was implicit that the appellant was authorized in granting planning permission that involve an increase in residential density in the locality of the proposed development without having any further formality. Otherwise, it would cause practical delay where all development in Kuala Lumpur will come to a halt. Therefore, the High Court erred in its reasoning that the appellant was required to make a rule and gazette in order to make his development order valid.

Application: By applying this judgment to the Michael Yeohs case, it is submitted that the appellant must provide the reasons in granting the planning permission so that the respondent will know of the amendment of the planning and to make the development valid.