Dr D Jeyakumar's bid to subject a supervision over its annual RM1 million grant for a Sungai Siput subdivision was shot down in a Court of Appeal today.
His lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasam pronounced it is a unsatisfactory preference as Jeyakumar was hoping which a justice would offer as a check upon a supervision in terms of transparency, as to where a income has gone.
Jeyakumar pronounced a justice - a last citadel of justice for a people - should have been understanding of a preference to safeguard which a income allocated is not wasted.
"I do not want a income for myself ... but to safeguard (that whatever is allocated) is scrupulously outlayed ....opposition MPs do not without delay get a grant from a sovereign supervision as well as this is disappointing.
"Following this decision, my summary to a people is which as we cannot depend upon a courts to look for clarity as well as it is people energy (that will) decide in a entrance ubiquitous election."
Jeyakumar pronounced he will consult Parti Sosialis Malaysia as to either or not to appeal this decision.
This is because a last opportunity to go to a Federal Court could be dear although a lawyers have been providing their services giveaway of charge.
Justice Low Hop Bing, sitting with Justices Abdul Wahab Patail as well as Anantham Kasinater, unanimously authorised a sovereign government's appeal currently as well as discharged Jeyakumar's application.
Jeyakumar had named a director-general of a Implementation Unit of a Prime Minister's Department, a executive of a Perak Development Department as well as a sovereign supervision as defendants.
In February Justice Aziah Ali of a Kuala Lumpur High Court had granted Jeyakumar leave to request for authorise! d review , to challenge a government's movement not to give or provide details of its annual grant of RM1 million to his constituency.
On Sept 23, a same High Court refused a supervision a stay of a authorised examination proceedings, leading to a appeal being filed.
Low: Judge erred in law
Justice Low, whose preference was examination out by a emissary registrar, pronounced a appellate justice is of a perspective a High Court had erred in granting leave for authorised review.
"We concede this appeal, set aside a order of a High Court as well as surrogate it with an order which a Notice of Motion be dismissed," he said.
His logic was which a value of a grant is entrusted in a director-general as well as director. And this involves a practice of option formed upon a detailed as well as extensive process of evaluation.
"The DG or executive is not compulsory to approve all as well as various applications for a allocation. The respondent (Jeyakumar) contingency uncover which there is a authorised or statutory avocation upon a partial of a DG as well as executive as a matter of course to approve his 2010 application."
Justice Low pronounced a respondent contingency settle a life of a avocation of a open nature, a opening of which is needed as well as not optional or discretionary.
"The respondent has failed to do so. The notice of suit is clearly premised upon a DG's as well as or director's option to approve as well as expend funds. There is not an iota of law which a DG or executive contingency do so," he pronounced in his 21-page judgment.
Justice Low serve pronounced there can be no disbelief which a approval as well as value of account involves a practice of discretion.
"The DG or executive contingency weigh a applications for a allocation. These ! applicat ions can only be motionless by a DG or a executive in line with process considerations as well as government prerogative.
"The significant background did uncover which a appellants had authorized (Jeyakumar's) duplicate amounting to RM1.72 million, whilst other applications have been being since consideration."
He serve forked out a Perak growth department head had referred to which Jeyakumar should channel applicable applications to applicable supervision agencies.
He pronounced that, in a process of evaluation, a DG or a executive contingency safeguard which value of allocations is consistent with supervision policy.
"Our courts do not retain a knowledge of process considerations t! shawl unde rlie a decisions pursuant to a DG's or director's evaluation.
"The issues lifted in a notice of suit have been issues of process considerations as well as government prerogative. We find which a acquiescence presented by a respondent is legally unsustainable.
"There we have been of a perspective which a issues lifted in a notice of suit have been not judicially reviewable as well as as a result not justiciable."
No comments:
Post a Comment