Chang Min Tat FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

Section 62 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958 which reads, in its relevant parts:

62.(1) Any appropriate authority may be order published in the Gazette provide suitable parking places for vehicles....

(3)An order under sub-section (1) may prescribe -

(a) the vehicles or class of vehicles which may use such parking place and the period during which and the conditions subject to which such parking place or stand may be used; and

(b)the charge, if any to be made for the use of such parking place.

(4)Where any charge for the use of such parking place is to be made or intended to be made pursuant to any order under this section, such order shall specify -

(i) ....

(ii) ....

and may further make provision in a parking place for any of the matters following:

. ...

(f) the charge to be levied in respect of the use thereof and the manner of its collection;" provides for the creation of parking places and for the imposition of charges for the use thereof. The former is a necessary convenience in a civilization so completely dependent on personal motorised transport and the latter is the means to exact payment, at least, in part for the provision and for the maintenance of the parking places from those who use the amenities. This duty of providing and charging for such services is places on the "appropriate authority.

Now the appropriate authority for and within the Municipality of Ipoh is by the interpretation in s. 58 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958 in relation to any road situate within the area of the Municipality the Municipality but only if it is declared by the Minister charged with responsibility for Local Government, to be such an authority.

Claiming to be such an authority, the Ipoh Municipality made an order known as the Road Traffic (Attendant Parking Places) (Ipoh Municipal Council) Order, 1969 which in effect creates parking places, regulates their use and fixes the charges for such user. This order also provides for the imposition under certain circumstances of excess charge or surcharge and if this is not paid within the time fixed, the imposition of an increased excess charge or surcharge as the case may be. This order, in the usual form of orders, does not refer to any declaration made by the responsible Minister of the appointment of the Ipoh Municipality as an appropriate authority but merely states that the Ipoh Municipality is such an authority.

If the Ipoh Municipality is in fact an appropriate authority, then it is clear that the Order is unchallengeable save on the ground of the reasonableness of the charges.

For nigh on ten years, this order has been acted on without challenge to its legality or to the quanta of the charges. Parking places have been provided, fees collected and where these have not been paid, excess charges or surcharges and in appropriate cases increased excess charges or surcharges have been imposed and collected. Everyone, or almost everyone, has hitherto accepted the validity and reasonableness of this order without demur. But in Perak Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1979, Mr. NH Chan, Judicial Commissioner (as he then was), suo motu, read that order as if by it, the Ipoh Municipality had declared itself to be the appropriate authority and he came to the opinion that it was a wrong declaration, since only the relevant Minister could so declare it. The Order was therefore, in his view, made without authority. Accordingly, he called up on revision the case of a car owner who had pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to pay an excess charge for parking, thereby rendering herself liable to an increased excess charge under para. 13A(2) of that Order, set aside the conviction and ordered the fine imposed and the charge, if paid, to be refunded. The basic contention of the lengthy oral judgment ([1980] 1 MLJ 241) which he delivered was that there had been no such declaration by the Minister in charge of Local Governme