Riduwan bin Rahmat 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) Loh Soo Mei

Riduwan bin Rahmat 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) Loh Soo Mei

The application was dismissed because a valid local plan was in force removing the statutory requirement to serve s21(6),(7) notices and hold hearings; social and traffic impact assessments were not mandatory for this category of development under the applicable guidelines; the First Respondent followed statutory procedures, considered objections and technical inputs (including TNB) and lawfully exercised planning discretion within statutory bounds.

Citation
BA-25-146-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Riduwan bin Rahmat; First Respondent: Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya; Second Respondent: Loh Soo Mei
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 May 2026
Case Number
BA-25-146-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Decision on Merits: Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality, Procedural Impropriety, Unreasonableness (wednesbury), Planning Permission, Social Impact Assessment, Traffic Impact, Setback Requirements, Public Consultation
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Town and Country Planning Local Government Law Judicial Review Illegality Procedural Impropriety Unreasonableness (wednesbury) Planning Permission +4 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riduwan bin Rahmat

Applicant

Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya

First Respondent

Loh Soo Mei

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Decision on Merits: Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s21(6),(7) Town and Country Planning Act 1976 and Rule 10 applied when a local plan exists
  2. 2 Whether s21A(1)(ea) requires mandatory social/traffic impact assessments for a place of worship
  3. 3 Whether the First Respondent failed to consider objections and material considerations rendering the decision unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because a valid local plan was in force removing the statutory requirement to serve s21(6),(7) notices and hold hearings; social and traffic impact assessments were not mandatory for this category of development under the applicable guidelines; the First Respondent followed statutory procedures, considered objections and technical inputs (including TNB) and lawfully exercised planning discretion within statutory bounds.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed