Civil Procedure : Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Articles 4(4) and 128(1)(a) Federal Constitution - Challenge brought by petitioner on the constitutionality of Incorporation (State Legislatures Competency) Act 1962 (Act 380) and Chief Minister of Penang (Incorporation) Enactment 2009 (Enactment 9)

Constitutional Law : Federal and State laws - Constitutionality - Land acquisition - Lands alienated to body corporate established under Enactment 9 - Whether State Legislature had powers to make laws under Enactment 9 - Whether Enactment 9 or alternatively ss 3, 4 and 5 of Enactment 9 was/were invalid and void as being a law which the State Legislature of the State of Penang had no power to make - Powers of Parliament to make law under Incorporation (State Legislatures Competency) Act 1962 (Act 380) - Whether Act 380, or alternatively s 3 and item 5 of the First Schedule thereof, in so far as it allowed the incorporation of Office of the Chief Minister of Penang with perpetual succession and permitted the corporation to engage in commercial activities was/were invalid and void as being a law which Parliament had no power to make

The petitioner was the registered owner of ten parcels of land in Balik Pulau, Penang ('the lands'). The lands were acquired by the Penang State Government (the 1st respondent) through the Director of Lands and Mines, Penang (the 3rd respondent) and the Land Administrator of the South West District of Penang (the 4th respondent). The lands were acquired for a public purpose under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('LAA'). The 4th respondent conducted an enquiry and offered compensation in the sum of RM40,161,639.50 to the petitioner and the latter accepted the same under protest. The petitioner later applied to the 4th respondent to refer its objection as to the amount of compensation to the High Court, which ordered the compensation amount to be increased to RM44,964,837. The 4th respondent then alienated the lands to the 5th respondent, a body corporate established under the Chief Minister of Penang (Incorporation) Enactment 2009 (Enactment 9). The lands were alienated with the express condition that they were to be used for educational purposes only. The petitioner commenced a civil suit at the High Court against the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents, challenging the validity of the acquisition of the lands and sought the return of the lands as it was alleged that the acquisition was done mala fide and not for a public purpose. The civil suit is still ongoing. The petitioner contended that the constitutionality of the Incorporation (State Legislatures Competency) Act 1962 (Act 380) and Enactment 9 could not be dealt with by the Penang High Court. Thus, the petitioner applied for leave to commence the present petition pursuant to arts 4(4) and 128(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. The Government of Malaysia (2nd respondent) and the Chief Minister of Penang (6th respondent) were included as respondents in this petition. It is the petitioner's case that Act 380 was ultra vires the Federal Constitution and a law that Parliament did not have the power to enact. The petitioner contended that Act 380 was invalid insofar as it authorised State Legislatures to make law relating to the incorporation of the Chief Minister and Act 380 contravened art 71(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provided for instances when Parliament might legislate in respect of essential provisions in a State Constitution. Therefore, in the present petition, the petitioner sought declarations that: (i) the Enactment or alternatively ss 3, 4 and 5 of the Enactment 9 was/were invalid and void as being a law which the State Legislature of the State of Penang had no power to make; and (ii) Act 380 or alternatively s 3 and item 5 of its First Schedule, insofar as it allowed the incorporation of the office of the Chief Minister of Penang with perpetual succession and permits the corporation to engage in commercial activities was/ were invalid and void as being a law which Parliament had no power to make.