PJ residents in legal challenge against now-aborted PJD Link project adopt wait-and-see approach

• “We will see first whether the decision is carried through.”

KUALA LUMPUR (July 31): The counsel for four Petaling Jaya residents who filed a judicial review action against the Selangor and federal governments over the Petaling Jaya Dispersal Link (PJD Link) project said they will adopt a wait-and see approach before considering withdrawing their legal action.

Lim Wei Jiet, acting for the four residents led by lawyer T Chakaravarthi, said this when asked by The Edge over the latest announcement by the Selangor government to scrap the project.

“We will see first whether the decision is carried through,” he told The Edge, in response to whether they will consider dropping the legal action.

On July 10 this year, the High Court granted the four residents leave (permission) to have the merits of their application to gain access to the Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) reports for the PJ Dispersal Link project to be heard.

This came after the residents had filed their judicial review application on June 7. Chakarawarthi and three others had named the director general of the Urban and Regional Planning Department, the director of the Selangor Urban and Regional Department, as well as the Selangor and federal governments, as respondents.

The residents are seeking a mandamus order to compel the respondents to hand over the SIA, EIA and TIA reports that the developer PJD Link (M) Sdn Bhd or its agents or consultants submitted to the respondents.

Furthermore, they are seeking the various minutes of the “focus group discussion” held by the consultants or agents of PJD Link and other related documents that are used to approve the project.

The residents also want the design of the proposed PJD Link project and the concession agreement dated April 5 last year, as well as a declaration that the concession agreement does not fall under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972.

If the judicial review is allowed, the residents want the documents to be provided to them within seven days of the decision. Besides that, they are seeking a declaration that the provision that the concession agreement is an official secret is unconstitutional and hence should be declared null and void.

In their application, the residents cited that the classification of the document under the OSA is a violation of their right to information under Article 10(1)(a), read together with Articles 5 (Liberty of a person) and 8 (Equality) of the Federal Constitution.