FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE AND POLICY STUDIES

LAW507 - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

GROUP TUTORIAL EXERCISE WEEK 9

PREPARED BY THE CLASS OF AM2263B:

1. NUR ASILAH BINTI MOHD YUSOF (2021505479)

2. NUR IZZATIE BINTI MOHD SHAIR (2021113879)
3. NURUL FARHANAH BINTI NOOR ZAIMI (2021132003)
4. NURUL ANIS ATHIRAH BINTI NOR ASPARI (2021113311)

PREPARED FOR:

AZLINA BINTI MOHD HUSSAIN

DATE OF SUBMISSION:
11 JUNE 2021
PAST YEAR QUESTION DEC 2018

PART B

QUESTION 3

Under Section 10 of the Road Transportation Act 2010, the Director General (DG) of
Transportation Department is given discretionary power to regulate and impose any relevant
conditions which he thinks are necessary before the issuance of driving licences. Pursuant to
the provision, the DG made the following decisions:

a) Mikail must paint his van orange before the renewal of his driving license is approved.

b) Zulaikha's application for a renewal of her driving licence is rejected because the DG
has a grudge against her after her refusal to become the DG's second wife.

c) Shahrul has to pay an additional fee of RM50 before he can apply for a new driving
license. The purpose of imposing the fee is to set up a fund which could be used for any
activity organised by the department.

d) DG asked his deputy to decide whether to accept or reject Ah Long's application for
renewing his driving license because he had a meeting with the Minister of
Transportation on that day. His deputy then rejected the application.

Mikail, Zulaikha, Shahrul and Ah Long are not satisfied with DG's decisions and now wish to
challenge the decisions made against them.

Advise them.
DISCRETIONARY POWER-UNREASONABLENESS

ISSUE 1

Whether it is reasonable to paint the van orange ?

LAW:

The first element to fulfil is reasonableness in doing the decision making. The test for
unreasonableness is not what the court think is reasonable but there is something so absurd
(inconsistent with reason/opinion/logic) that no reasonable or sensible person could have come to
the decision. It can refer to the case Backhouse v Lambeth London Borough Council. The act
of the authority increasing the rent fees from 17 pound to 18000 pound per week was
unreasonable and therefore invalid

APPLICATION

The DG asked Malik that he must paint his van orange before the renewal of his driving license
is approved. This shows unreasonableness in the decision making made by the DG because it is
not logic and not fair to Malik to paint his van in order to get the renewal licence. Moreover, this
matter is not enshrined in any law or condition, so it is invalid.

CONCLUSION

As conclusion Mikail can sue the Director General (DG) of Transportation Department under the
ground of unreasonableness.
DISCRETIONARY POWER-MALA FIDE

ISSUE 2

Whether there is element of mala fide between the DG and Zulaikha ?

LAW

Mala fide means dishonest intention or corrupt motive or personal animosity on the part of the
authority. referred to as fraud on power. includes cases where the motive behind the
discretionary act is personal animosity, spite, vengeance against the person affected. If an
administrator used his power to satisfy his private or personal grudge, then the act is said to be
vitiated by mala fides. It can refer to the case Saw Kong Beng v Mahkamah Perusahaan
Malaysia & Anor (2016) 8 CLJ 891. The applicant had been working for the second respondent
for more than 20 years, but he was terminated by the company by the reason of redundancy. The
applicant brought the case for judicial review on the ground of mala fide since the applicant's job
still exist in the company but were mainly taken over by another person three months before he
was terminated. The court held that there was mala fide in the termination of the application
considering the applicant was the only Vice President that was terminated by the company

APPLICATION

In this case, Zulaikha requested for the renewal driving license and it was rejected by the DG.
There was a mala fide in this case as DG has grudge against her after her refusal to become the
DG’s second wife. However, Zulaikha can still challenge the decision because she has a right to
apply the renewal of driving license because mala fide is invalid in this case.

CONCLUSION

As conclusion Zulaikha can sue the Director General (DG) of Transportation Department under
the ground of mala fide
DISCRETIONARY POWER-IMPROPER PURPOSE

ISSUE 3

Whether Shahrul has been charge for improper purpose ?

LAW

Next, elements that need to fulfil is proper purposed in making decision at all case. Improper
purpose is a purpose that lies outside the scope and purpose of the statute that confers the
discretionary power to the public authority. An authority must make sure that it will not use its
powers for a different purpose when the parent statute has spelled out its policy and objects for
one particular purpose. If a statute confers powers on an authority for one purpose, its use for a
different purposed is invalid. It can refer to the case Sydney Municipal Council v Campbell
(1925) A. C. 338.Statutory power was conferred on the Council to acquire the land compulsorily
for the purposed of making or extending streets or for carrying out improvements in or
remodelling any portions of the city. The respondent challenged the council’s decisions in
acquiring his land on the basis that it wanted to gain profits on the value of the land which was
located beside the street which was being extended. The court held that there was indeed an
improper exercised in the decisions because it could be proven from the minutes of meetings that
there was no plan to improve or remodel the land in question and that the acquisition was only
financial advantages. The acquisition was consequently quashed as invalid.

APPLICATION

In this case, Shahrul has to pay an additional fee RM 50 for the applications of his new licenses.
It shows improper purposed because the purposed of the fees is to set up fund which could be
used for any activity organised by the department. Shahrul can refused to pay for it since it not
stated in the obligations and the acquisition was consequently quashed as invalid.

CONCLUSION

As conclusion Shahrul can sue the Director General (DG) of Transportation Department under
the ground of improper purpose
DISCRETIONARY POWER-ACTING UNDER DICATTION

ISSUE 4

Whether the decision for Ah Long’s application is acting under dictation ?

LAW

One of the failures to exercise discretionary power is acting under dictation. Acting under
dictation is a situation where a decision-making body improperly allows itself to be directed by
another person or body when making a decision. Under the law, the discretion was vested in the
official himself, but he did not apply his own mind and he thus acted as nothing more than a
mere transmitting agent of the government's order. It can refer to the case H. Lavender v
Minister of Housing (1970) 3 AII ER 871.The government adopted a policy to reserve high
quality agricultural land for purposes of agriculture against disturbance by gravel working. The
Minister of Housing who had discretion to allow extraction of minerals refused permission to the
petitioner to extract minerals from agricultural holding on the ground that the Minister of
Agriculture objected to the proper proposed use of the land for reasons of agriculture.

APPLICATION

So back to Ah Long’s case, it was invalid when DG asked his deputy to decide whether to accept
or rejected Ah Long’s applications for renewing his driving license. It is invalid because he must
function himself and exercise his own power according to his judgement, even though he had
meeting with someone else that day. Ah Long can still challenge for it when his deputy rejected
his application because the deputy got no right at all.

CONCLUSION

As conclusion Ah Long can sue the Director General (DG) of Transportation Department under
the ground of acting under dictation.