to a supervisory role that is the decision or rule and the decision or rulemaking process. If the High Court finds the decision or the action being flawed, then it may quash it but it will then be for the decision or rule maker to reconsider the decision or rule. So, if the court nullifies the Regulations the Minister would still be at liberty to make new Regulations provided, he avoids committing the same mistakes for, certiorari does not go that far. It is clear as correctly noted by learned senior state attorney that from page 1 to page 7 of the applicants’ submission, an attempt has been made to discuss on the case laws and principles relating to judicial reviews. Those principles, in my view, are sound and may be of assistance to this application whereby the applicants are seeking to challenge the Minister’s rule-making procedure and the Regulations promulgated therefrom. Generally, courts review the validity of a subsidiary legislation by applying the doctrine of ultra vires in that the subsidiary legislation may be declared void if it is made in excess of statutory authority conferred by the parent Act or a particular mandatory procedure prescribed by the parent Act has not been followed or is contrary to the Constitution. In the same vein, the parent Act would most times set out the procedure to be followed to enact any subsidiary legislation under it. It would also set out the nature and substance of such subsidiary legislation so that where there is a defect in procedure adopted to pass 13