PUTRAJAYA, May 9 — The Federal Court here today dismissed an appeal brought by a homeowner and his tenant who sought to declare the gated and guarded community security scheme operated by the Bangsar Park Residents’ Association (BPRA) in Bangsar Park as illegal.
Ranjan Paramalingam and Jude Micory Lobijin’s appeal were dismissed by a three-member panel of judges comprising Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, alongside Federal Court judges Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang.
The court also ordered the duo to pay RM70,000 in legal costs to BPRA.
In the court’s unanimous decision, Justice Tengku Maimun said the court found no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal in the case.
“We decline to answer the questions (of law) posed,” she said when delivering the court’s decision.
The High Court dismissed Ranjan and Lobijin’s lawsuit against the BPRA on January 26, 2021, while the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision on June 28, last year.
In their appeal, the duo posed four questions of law, seeking the Federal Court to decide the questions in their favour.
Among the questions were whether the gated and guarded community scheme run by the BPRA in public areas, including roads and facilities, without positive legislative provisions permitting such a scheme were illegal and unconstitutional in the light of the Federal Court decision in the case of the Home Ministry and others versus the Penang state government.
The other question was whether the BPRA and their agents are forbidden by personal data law and identity card legislation from collecting the personal data of people entering public roads and areas covered by their gated and guarded scheme.
Ranjan, who owns a house in the area and Lobijin, the tenant of the property, filed a suit claiming that the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) had approved a guarded neighbourhood scheme with one of the conditions that permanent lock barriers or boom gates were not allowed to be erected.
The duo claimed that BPRA, however, had implemented a gated and guarded community scheme instead and set up permanent barriers and boom gates in the Bangsar Park area causing obstruction on all public roads. This, they said had caused public and private nuisance.
They also claimed that there was a breach of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) by BPRA as security guards at the guard post would ask for personal identification documents such as identity cards, driving licences or passports before visitors were allowed to enter the area.
Ranjan and Lobijin were represented by lawyer Datuk Bastian Vendargon, while the BPRA was represented by lawyer Fahri Azzat.
— Bernama
