Justice Roz Mawar Rozain held that the Taman Suriaman 2 (Veonna) residential area in Sendayan did not qualify as a guarded community under federal government and council guidelines.
She said while the area was not classified as a guarded community, the council was not entitled to impose conditions that undermined the effectiveness of security measures or were contrary to public safety.
Roz Mawar said the council’s condition prohibiting the residents’ association from requiring non-paying residents to manually operate boom gates was unlawful.
She said conditions restricting visitor registration and the verification of identity documents were likewise void.
“These restrictions prevent the residents’ association from fulfilling its safety objectives, as a previous court ruling recognised that safety-based data recording is both permissible and necessary,” she said in her 35-page judgment released on Monday.
The application was filed by Zafri Effendi Ghazali, a representative of the residents’ association, against the council over the management of the residential area.
The dispute centres on contested local government guidelines that restrict security measures, including the use of boom gates and visitor registration requirements for non-paying residents.
Community safety over ‘slight inconvenience’
Roz Mawar said she was bound by the precedent set in the 2014 Federal Court decision in Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’Villa Equestrian, which held that requiring non-paying residents to manually operate boom gates does not constitute a legal nuisance or real interference with the enjoyment of property.
“Section 101(v) of the Local Government Act provides that priority is to be given to measures conducive to public safety.
“Our courts have long held that the greater interest of community security must prevail over the slight inconvenience caused to an individual resident who chooses not to contribute to the security scheme,” she said.
She said the council was therefore not entitled to impose conditions that stripped the residents’ association of its ability to deter non-contribution through manual gate operation.
Roz Mawar said the council had justified the restrictions on the basis that they were intended to balance security with individual rights and public convenience.
However, she held that the restrictions were irrational and counterproductive to the purpose of a guarded neighbourhood scheme.
She said if security guards were prohibited from verifying the identity of visitors or the purpose of their visit, the guardhouse would become purely symbolic, allowing unrestricted entry.
“It is a fundamental security measure to confirm that those seeking entry are genuine visitors,” she said.
Lawyer A Surendra Ananth represented Zafri Effendi while A Ganesalingam and R Komathi appeared for the council.