PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ruled that a residents’ association within the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) jurisdiction can impose a condition requiring non-paying members living in the residential area to operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards.
A three-member panel of judges – Justices Datuk Has Zanah Mehat, Datuk See Mee Chun and Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima – allowed an appeal brought by Chow Hau Mun, the chairman of the Parkville residents association, to overturn the High Court’s decision.
The panel allowed the residents association’s judicial review to quash MBPJ’s decision to reject its (the association’s) application to impose the condition that non-paying owners and residents, or non-members of the association, operate the boom gates themselves.
In the court’s decision, Justice Has Zanah said the condition was reasonable and was in line with a Federal Court ruling in the case of Au Kean Hoe v D’Villa Equestrian, where the Federal Court held that the construction of a guardhouse and boom gates did not amount to an “obstruction” under Section 46(1) (a) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974.
The court ordered MBPJ to pay RM8,000 in legal costs to the Parkville residents association.
One of Chow’s lawyers, A. Surendra Ananth, when contacted by Bernama, confirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision, which was delivered online yesterday.
Lawyer Datuk Malik Intiaz Sarwar also represented Chow, while lawyer Yatiswara Ramachandran appeared for MBPJ.
Chow had filed for a judicial review on behalf of the Parkville residents association seeking, among other things, a declaration that the residents association is entitled to impose a rule that non-paying owners and residents, or non-members of the association, in the residential area would operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards.
This was after MBPJ, on March 30, 2021, rejected the association’s application for permission to impose the condition.
In July last year, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed the judicial review and ruled that MBPJ’s decision not to allow the association to impose the condition was not illegal, irrational or unreasonable.
