Saravanan a/l Sangaralingam & Anor v Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh & Anor

Appellant(s):

• Saravanan A/L Sangaralingam
• Pussperwali A/P Ramasamy

Respondent(s):

• Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh
• Yoga Indran A/l A Ganabathy

• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid
• YA Dato' Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

• The appellants carried out house renovations, including increasing the height of a boundary wall, without prior approval from the first respondent (the local authority) or the second respondent (the neighbor).
• After the appellants pleaded guilty to a statutory summons and paid a fine, the first respondent granted them retrospective planning permission for the wall; however, following a complaint by the second respondent, the first respondent later ordered the wall height be reduced from 9 feet to 4 feet.
• The appellants sought a judicial review of this order, but the High Court dismissed the application, ruling that the first respondent had acted within its statutory discretion and that the challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on a consent order recorded between the two respondents in a separate proceeding.

• Whether administrative guidelines issued by a local authority possess the force of law to justify the revocation of a previously granted planning approval in the absence of an enabling statutory provision.
• Whether the first respondent’s decision to reduce the wall height was irrational or violated the appellants' legitimate expectation that the structure could be lawfully maintained following the grant of planning permission.
• Whether a judicial review of an administrative decision constitutes a collateral attack on a consent order to which the appellants were not a party and which was recorded after the impugned decision was made.

• The Court allowed the appeal, holding that administrative guidelines do not have the force of law unless enacted pursuant to an enabling statutory power; consequently, the first respondent acted unlawfully by basing its decision on guidelines rather than primary or subsidiary legislation.
• The Court found the decision irrational and a breach of legitimate expectation, as the first respondent had previously granted approval and affirmed the wall's safety on oath, thereby estopping it from subsequently ordering a height reduction without evidence of public nuisance or danger.
• The Court clarified that the challenge was not a collateral attack because a consent order is contractual in nature and does not bind non-parties, nor does it preclude a party from challenging an independent administrative act that preceded the order.