Law 309 Salehuddin Al Ayubi Prepared for Madam Mimi Sofiah Tutorial 3 (Question 3) Issue : 1.

Whether approved the application for license wives welfare association so that wives of the staff could occupy their free time usefully is improper or not. 2. Whether application from Amin unreasonableness or not. 3. Whether has mala fide or not. 4. Whether the decision were the hawker need to close their stall on Friday is misdirection of fact and law or not. Principle: The principle that can be use to solve this problem is discretionary of power. Discretionary power is the power conferred upon administrative bodies by the legislator via the statute. The concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action of in which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinion as to which is to be prepared Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education and Science v tameside metropolitan [1977] AC 1014. There some authority indicating discretionary of power, in Article 24 of Federal Constitutions, Section 8(1) of the internal security Act and The printing, presses and Publication Act 1984. There also have effect of broad discretionary power, this is where the legislature leaves wide discretionary power without standards, recourse may be had to the mechanism of delegated and administrative direction for laying down. There also has judicial control where it can brought to the court for judicial review also ground for judicial review (ultra vires), which is have procedural ultra vires, substantives ultra vires and extended ultra vires, where it divided into two, abuse discretionary power and failure to exercise discretionary power.

Application : Regarding to the issue, it is state that Licensing Board of Tanah Gajah (LBTG) has approve the hawker licensing from Wives Welfare Association is improper purpose or not. The improper purpose can see as a purpose that lies outside the scope. It confers the discretionary power to the public authority. It shows in LBTG has improper the application because it is wives of the staff, so the LBTG wives has an opportunity to accupy their times usefully. It is not valid because the staff have abuse discretionary power went the license has approve there has improper purpose. The case that can be related of this issues, Sydney Municipal Council v Campbell [1925] A.C. Next issue, is did the application make by Amin is unreasonableness or not. This can see in where LBTG has refused the application make by Amin , where he is unemployed and did have experience and want to start that business , in the test unreasonable is not reasonable or sensible person could have come to that decision. In this issues , there unreasonableness because LBTG approve the licensing Act is to increase the income of lower income group. The case that support this issue is, Backhous v lambeth London Borough Council and Abu Samad Othman Sdn Bhd [2007] 7 CLJ 188. The third issue, is where Pak Som renew license has been refused is mala fide or not. Mala fide means that dishonest intentions or corrupts motive on the part of authority. It vitiates a discretionary decisions even though the administrators act within the legal limits of its powers. In this issue, Pak Som is from different political view that of the member of the Licensing Board and it is invalid because it is not real reasons to refused Pak Son license just because he has different political reviews. Refer to the cases, Sadanandan v State of kerala A.I.R 1996 S.C 25 and Ramlah Mukadis v Ketua Pengarah Alam Seliling & anor (2010) 4 CLJ 499. Issue are, concern whether imposed a condition that all hawkers must close their stalls on Friday, so that they can perform their Friday prayers. The circular issued by the Stated Islamic Council is failure of exercise under acting mechanically or it in this case. The decision of the authority does not have any element of inflexibility and follows only what is laid down by the law. This were show that LBTG have followed the State Islamic Council, where that Friday prayer is very important to al muslim but not to close the stall on Friday. In support this issues there are same case, Chong Cheng Wah v Sivasubramaniam [1974] 2 ALL ER 201 In conclusion, public bodies have discretionary power in discharging their day to day functions, the exercise of such a power must be carried out sparingly to abuse the power. It is vital that the discretion best owes upon bodies is not misused to prevent public dissatisfaction. In this issue the LBTG as a public body must be reasonability to take care of their people. They need to follow the rule and not making decision by all the way.