Local authority's jurisdiction does not extend to regulating structures on Federal roads; such authority lies with the Minister of Works under relevant federal legislation.

[1] This is an application for judicial review of the following decision of the respondent:-

(i) the respondents decision ( "the Respondents 1^st Decision") requiring the applicant to apply for planning permission for the construction of a pole and camera ("the AES Pole) to be utilized for the operation of the Automated Enforcement System ("AES") provided by the applicant pursuant to an initiative of the Federal Government with the primary objective of changing the attitude of drivers as a road safety measure of reducing road accidents and enforcing traffic laws on speeding at KM301.7, North South Highway (PLUS) heading to Kuala Lumpur near the Malaysian Highway Authorities Headquarters at Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor ("PLUS HIGHWAY"). The applicant was informed of this decision by letter dated 19 November 2012 ("the First Notice")

(ii) the respondents decision ("the Respondent 2^nd Decision") requiring the applicant to apply for planning permission for the construction of a pole and camera ("the AES Pole") to be utilized for the operation of the Automated Enforcement System ("AES") at KM6.6, South Klang Valley Highway, heading to Kajang near the SHELL Petrol Station in Taman Suria Tropika, Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor ("SKVE Highway"). The applicant was informed of this decision by letter dated 19 November 2012 (the 2^nd Notice").

(iii) the respondents decision ("the Respondents 3^nd Decision") that the applicant has committed an offence under s 70(13)(c) Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (""), for the construction of the AES Pole on the PLUS and SKVE Highways without the respondents written approval and directing the applicant to take action pursuant to s 72(1)(b) of the SDBA to demolish the AES Pole within 14 days from the date of the notice and pursuant to s 72(1)(c) of the SDBA to cover the AES camera forthwith within 24 hours from the date of the notice. The applicant was informed of this decision by letter dated 6 December 2012 which was amended by letter dated 7 December 2012 ("the 3^nd Notice").

[2] Besides, the applicant also seeks a declaration that the respondent does not have jurisdiction on the PLUS & SKVE Highway.

Interveners Application

[3] The Attorney General of Malaysia, vide Enclosure 7 had applied to intervene in this judicial review application on the ground that the matter for determination before the court is a matter of public interest and concerns publication policy.

[4] The respondent opposed the application on the ground that the Attorney General does not have locus standi to intervene based on the Federal court decision in the case of Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors, 2009 MarsdenLR 2301 . In Bongs case the Federal court held, inter alia, that O 53 r 8(1) of the Rules of the High 1980 specifically caters to person claiming an interest in the judicial review proceedings and who wishes to be heard in opposition. It is argued that in the affidavit filed by the Attorney General there is no averment that he wishes to be heard in opposition. Hence, the Attorney General has failed to meet the test required under O 53 r 8(1). The Attorney General also has not shown that he has a direct interest in the matter. The Federal Constitution does not give him power to intervene as required by Art 145. The Attorney General has also not shown any other law that gives him power to intervene. Further it is also argued that the issue in dispute is a private matter and will not affect the interest of the public.