Tan Bun Teet v Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Pahang & Ors

Appellant(s): Tan Bun Teet

Respondent(s):

• Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Pahang
• Majlis Bandaraya Kuantan
• Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd
• Lynas Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan

• The appellant challenged a planning permission granted by the local planning authority to a developer for the construction of a permanent disposal facility (PDF) intended to store radioactive waste generated by a rare earth processing plant.
• The appellant contended that the planning permission was void for non-compliance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA), specifically alleging a failure to seek mandatory advice from the National Physical Planning Council (NPPC) and a contravention of the local plan.
• Prior to the judicial review, the project had already obtained environmental impact and radiological safety approvals from specialized regulatory bodies, and by the time of the appeal, the facility was fully constructed and operational.

• Whether the judicial review application was filed "promptly" and within the three-month limit prescribed by Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012, and whether the Court lacks jurisdiction if an applicant fails to account for delays.
• Whether a facility for the disposal of radioactive waste constitutes "major national infrastructure" or a "toxic waste disposal site" under Sections 20B and 22(2A) of the TCPA, thereby triggering a mandatory statutory duty to consult the NPPC.
• Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time or substantive relief in circumstances where the facility is completed and operational, and where the appellant had exhausted or abandoned challenges in specialized regulatory fora.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application was not filed "promptly"; the requirement for promptness is independent of the three-month outer limit, and failure to act with urgency in planning cases—where third-party interests and public investment are at stake—is fatal to the Court's jurisdiction.
• The Court ruled that "toxic waste" under the TCPA refers to chemical and industrial waste regulated under the Environmental Quality Act 1974, whereas "radioactive waste" is a *sui generis* category governed exclusively by the Atomic Energy Licensing Board; thus, no mandatory referral to the NPPC was required.
• The Court declined to grant discretionary relief, concluding that quashing the permission for a completed, operational facility would be academic and prejudicial to regulatory certainty, especially since the appellant failed to demonstrate substantiated environmental or health risks that had not already been addressed by expert tribunals.