Case:

Brief Facts:

• The Residents Association of Parkville Sunway Damansara (“RA”) had applied to the Respondent, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (“MBPJ”) on 12.12.2017, for the RA to be a guarded community.
  
  
• The application was then approved for 2 years from 1.11.2018 until 31.10.2020 with a condition which stipulated that no driver of any vehicle could be ordered to alight from his car to open the boom gate by himself to enable his vehicle to use the access road to the residential area.
  
  
• The RA was subsequently de-registered on 20.11.2018 but it was re- registered on 26.12.2019.
  
  
• Following its first Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 19.9.2020, the RA decided to submit a renewal application to continue as a guarded community and intended to impose the condition that non-paying owners or non-members of the RA would have to operate the boom gate themselves without the assistance of security guards (“the Condition”).
  
  
• On 9.10.2020, the RA submitted its application to renew MBPJ’s approval to operate as a guarded community.
  
  
• On 8.12.2020, renewal of the same was obtained for the period from 1.12.2020 until 1.12.2022 with a stipulation that the RA cannot direct that non-members have to register with the guard house in order to gain entry into the RA.
  
  
• Then on 21.12.2020, the RA wrote to MBPJ stating it will be imposing the Condition.
  
  
• Thereafter, complaints from the residents in the RA ensued pertaining to the Condition which prompted a visit from MBPJ on 27.1.2021.
  
  
• Upon conducting their visit, MBPJ vide letter dated 7.4.2021, rejected the RA’s request to impose the Condition.
  
  
• Aggrieved by the above, the RA filed an application in the High Court to set aside the decision of the MBPJ

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC)

• Upon due consideration, the HC ruled that the act of non-paying or non-members of the residents’ association opening the boom gate themselves is not something necessary for or conducive to the public safety, health and convenience of the Residents. Therefore, such Condition cannot be permitted.

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL (COA)

• While the COA recognized that MBPJ is the rightful authority for the approval of boom gates, it was ascertained that it should be exercised to balance the rights of the individuals against the community at large.
  
  
• The COA noted that the Condition in the present case was imposed as it would be unfair and unreasonable for non-paying members to enjoy the benefits of a guarded community without making any contribution.
  
  
• The COA further held that there must be a sense of collective responsibility towards the greater good to ensure the safety and security of a residential area.
  
  
• In light of the above, the COA held that it is only reasonable that the RA is entitled to impose the Condition sought and the decision by the HC was set aside.