The Attorney-General’s (AG’s) Chambers today has made a preliminary objection to the move by seven Kuantan residents to obtain permission from the Kuantan High Court to initiate judicial review proceedings against the issuance of the Temporary Operating Licence (TOL) for Lynas.

This judicial review application is different from the previous one as that concerned the approval given by the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) for the TOL.

Today, the senior federal counsel from the AG’s Chambers, appearing for the respondents, is making the objection.

“The government lawyers requested time to file written submissions on their objection.

“The parties were directed to do so and the court has fixed Jan 29, next year for clarification and decision,” said lawyer Gene Anand Vendargon, who is appearing for the applicants.

In judicial review applications, it is a two-step process to have the application heard as leave (permission) has to be obtained first to make sure the application is not frivolous and vexatious.

Two different judicial review applications

The Kuantan residents have been fighting tooth and nail against the multi-billion ringgit Australian rare earth plant in Gebeng as they had earlier filed two different judicial review applications - one in Kuala Lumpur and the other, the present one, in Kuantan.

On April 12, the Kuala Lumpur High Court refused to grant leave to 10 residents from Gebeng, Kuantan, where their application was declared “premature” by the court to challenge the TOL as they have not exhausted their avenues. The Court of Appeal also rejected their application for leave.

The Kuantan High Court however, granted leave to the residents in challenging the approval of the TOL order in August but refused to grant a stay of the TOL issuance.

However, the appeal over the stay application will be heard before the Court of Appeal tomorrow.

Besides the court applications, the residents have mounted the Himpunan Hijau gathering in Kuantan, and also the Green March last month.

The government has also been giving conflicting versions on the disposal of Lynas wastes and residues and this has created queries despite the issuance of the TOL.