Bukit Cherakah degazettement: Appeals court defers decision in NGOS’ appeal

The Court of Appeal three-member bench has postponed its decision on the appeal made by two non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who were denied leave by the High Court to initiate a judicial review challenging the Selangor state government’s action to revoke Bukit Cherakah’s status as a forest reserve. Justice Datuk Azizah Nawawi, chair of the bench, stated that the court will provide the decision at a later date due to the matter’s public interest. She further mentioned that the court will inform all parties involved, including the Shah Alam Community Forest Society (SACF), Pertubuhan Pelindung Khazanah Alam Malaysia (Peka), the Selangor State government, State Executive Council, State Forestry Department director, the Petaling Land and Mines Department, as well as the counsels representing two companies and the State Development Corporation (PKNS).

The other two judges on the bench were Justices Datuk Azimah Omar and Datuk Wong Kian Kheong.

Peka and SACF’s application for leave to commence the judicial review was dismissed by the Shah Alam High Court on November 17 of last year. The NGOs sought leave to initiate the judicial review in order to challenge the decision made by the Selangor government, the State Executive Council, the State Forestry Department director, and the Petaling Land and Mines Department on May 5 of the same year to revoke 406.22 hectares of Bukit Cherakah forest reserve. The NGOs contended that it was unlawful for the Selangor government to retroactively revoke the gazette and backdate the decision to November 20, 2000.

In the judicial review, the NGOs named the Selangor government, the State Executive Council, the State Forestry Department director, the Petaling Land and Mines Department, YCH Development Sdn Bhd, PKNS, and Restu Mantap Sdn Bhd as respondents. During the proceedings, the lawyer representing the NGOs, Rajesh Nagarajan, requested the court to grant them leave to commence the judicial review, highlighting the existence of issues that should be examined. He argued that the National Forestry Act 1984 does not grant the state authority the power to retrospectively revoke forest reserves and claimed that the State Executive Council’s decision was illegal.

On the other hand, Khairul Nizam, the assistant state legal adviser appearing for the Selangor State government, State Executive Council, State Forestry Department director, and the Petaling Land and Mines Department, contended that the High Court judge correctly rejected the leave application. Nizam argued that the lands in question belonged to the state and it was within their prerogative to dispose of them as deemed fit. He further stated that the burden was on the NGOs to demonstrate that the revocation had infringed upon their right to protect the rainforest and conserve the Shah Alam community forest, but there was no evidence supporting that claim.

Additionally, the NGOs were represented by lawyer Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal. YCH Development was represented by lawyer Ng Ka Choon, Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor by lawyer Ganapathi Ramasamy, and Restu Mantap by lawyer John Wong Yok Hon. – Bernama