The first, second and third applicants apply in terms of section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000, (“PAJA”) for the judicial review and setting aside of a decision of the second respondent refusing to register first applicant as a taxi association. Second and third applicants are members of first applicant. In their founding papers the applicants rely on Section 6(2)(d) and (e)(iii) as the jurisdictional basis for these proceedings.
 The subsection reads as follows:
"(2) A court or tribunal has the power to judicially review an administrative action if-
(d) the action was materially influenced by an error of law;
(e) the action was taken-
(iii) because irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations were not considered;”
 The application for registration was lodged with the second respondent during 2008. On 5 January 2009 the second respondent, by letter, notified the applicants that their application had been unsuccessful. I quote the relevant letter, verbatim: