RIDUWAN BIN RAHMAT 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGANUT SRI MAHA MARIAMMAN

RIDUWAN BIN RAHMAT 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGANUT SRI MAHA MARIAMMAN

The application was dismissed because the First Respondent acted within its statutory powers and procedures: a local plan for the area existed (so s21 notification/hearing obligations did not arise for the Applicant), applicable state guidelines did not mandate formal social or traffic impact assessments for a place of worship, the First Respondent considered objections and valid planning judgment was exercised (not Wednesbury irrational), and the society appearing was distinct from but capable of being reconciled with the gazetted 2nd Respondent such that the Applicant's locus and procedural challenges failed.

Citation
BA-25-12-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Riduwan bin Rahmat; First Respondent: Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya; Second Respondent: Persatuan Penganut Dewi Sri Maha Mariamman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 May 2026
Case Number
BA-25-12-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment (decision on Merits)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Procedural Impropriety, Illegality, Irrationality (wednesbury), Planning Permission, Social Impact Assessment, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Judicial Review Locus Standi Procedural Impropriety Illegality Irrationality (wednesbury) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riduwan bin Rahmat

Applicant

Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya

First Respondent

Persatuan Penganut Dewi Sri Maha Mariamman

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment (decision on Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Respondent had locus standi and whether the society participating was the 2nd Respondent named in the gazette
  2. 2 Whether the First Respondent contravened Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) and Selangor Rules in granting conditional approval (notification and hearing requirements)
  3. 3 Whether a social impact assessment including traffic assessment was mandatory under section 21A(1)(ea) and related guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the First Respondent acted within its statutory powers and procedures: a local plan for the area existed (so s21 notification/hearing obligations did not arise for the Applicant), applicable state guidelines did not mandate formal social or traffic impact assessments for a place of worship, the First Respondent considered objections and valid planning judgment was exercised (not Wednesbury irrational), and the society appearing was distinct from but capable of being reconciled with the gazetted 2nd Respondent such that the Applicant's locus and procedural challenges failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.