Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar, 55, who filed a judicial review application today at the Kuala Lumpur High Court has named Ismail Sabri Yaakob, the EC chairman and the government as respondents.
Citing prevailing conditions and other factors affecting the country, he said Ismail had acted unreasonably when exercising his power to request for the dissolution of Parliament.
The applicant, who is a voter in the Pandan parliamentary constituency, wants a declaration that the request by Ismail on Sunday (Oct 9) to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is null and void and of no effect.
Syed Iskandar, a lawyer by profession, said Ismail was wrong to rely on Articles 40(2)(b) and 55(2) of the Federal Constitution to end the term of the Dewan Rakyat.
He wants a writ of prohibition to stop the EC chairman or his servants or agents from taking steps to conduct the polls.
Syed Iskandar, who filed the action through his solicitors, Messrs R Kengadharan & Co, is also seeking such further relief that the court may deem necessary.
On Monday, Ismail announced that Parliament had been dissolved, paving the way for elections to be held within 60 days.
On the same day, Istana Negara issued a media statement that the King had no option but to dissolve Parliament following disappointing political developments.
Syed Iskandar, who filed an affidavit in support of the application, said Ismail acted in breach of his fiduciary duties as he had failed to consider the welfare and interests of the poorer segments of the voting public.
He said Ismail failed to consider the impact of potential floods. Instead, the caretaker prime minister only considered the interests of Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who is facing criminal charges.
On Monday, ex-Klang MP Charles Santiago filed an originating summons to stop the EC from conducting the polls on the ground that Ismail had breached provisions in the Federal Constitution.
He wanted a declaration that the request for dissolution by Ismail to the King was in contravention of Article 40(1) and (1A) of the Federal Constitution.
Santiago said that the request was not made on the advice of the Cabinet and was, therefore, null and void.