The Commissioner of Buildings lacks the authority under the Strata Management Act 2013 to suspend provisions or grant adjournments of annual general meetings, as such powers must be exercised by the State Authority.

JUDGMENT

Faizah Jamaludin J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Kawasan Pentadbiran Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang, who is Commissioner of Buildings for the local authority area under the jurisdiction of Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang ("appellant"/ "MBPP-COB") against part of the Order issued by the Pulau Pinang High Court on 3 April 2023 (the "Order") in Judicial Review Application No: PA-25-39-08/2022.

[2] The respondent is Perbadanan Pengurusan Mar Vista Resort. It is the management corporation of a subdivided building known as the Mar Vista Resort ("respondent"/ "Mar Vista MC"): it was formed under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (Act 318)("STA 1985"). The Mar Vista MC was the applicant in the judicial review proceeding before the Pulau Pinang High Court .

[3] The appellant is appealing against para (b) and (c) of the Order, where the High Court declared that the decisions made by the appellant in his letters dated 7 June 2022 ("Impugned Decision No. 1") and 30 June 2022 ("Impugned Decision No. 2") are invalid, not in accordance with the law and void. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Order are reproduced below:

b) Satu deklarasi bahawa keputusan Responden melalui suratnya bertarikh 7 Jun 2022 yang menyatakan bahawa tiada sebarang peruntukan dalam Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 yang memberi kuasa kepada Responden untuk memberikan penangguhan kepada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan adalah tidak sah, tidak menurut undang-undang dan terbatal;

c) Satu deklarasi bahawa keputusan Responden melalui suratnya bertarikh 30 Jun 2022 yang menyatakan bahawa tiada sebarang peruntukan dalam Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 yang memberi kuasa kepada Responden untuk memberikan penangguhan kepada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan adalah tidak sah, tidak menurut undang-undang dan terbatal;

Impugned Decision No. 1

[4] On 1 June 2022, the respondent wrote to the appellant requesting a postponement of its 8th annual general meeting ("AGM") for a period of 12 months because a fight had broken out during the 8th AGM on 22 May 2022.

[5] In Impugned Decision No. 1, the appellant informed the respondent that he is unable to grant the respondent's application for an extension of time to convene its AGM because there are no provisions in the Strata Management Act (" SMA 2013"), which empowers the COB to allow for the postponement of general meetings. The appellant ordered the respondent to call for its AGM within one month from the date of the letter. Para 3, 4, and 5 of Impugned Decision No. 1 are reproduced below:

3. Untuk makluman, tiada sebarang peruntukan pada Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 (Akta 757) yang memberikan kuasa kepada pihak Pesuruhjaya Bangunan untuk memberikan penangguhan kepada mesyuarat agung. Oleh itu, pihak kami tidak dapat memberikan sebarang penangguhan kepada mana-mana mesyuarat agung.

4. Sehubungan itu, pihak tuan hendaklah mengadakan mesyuarat agung tahunan sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan pada Perenggan 10 Jadual Kedua Akta 757. Kegagalan mengadakan mesyuarat agung tahunan boleh diambil tindakan mengikut Peraturan 34(2) pada Peraturan-Peraturan Pengurusan Strata (Penyenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2015.

5. Oleh yang demikian, pihak tuan diarahkan untuk memanggil Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan dalam tempoh satu (1) bulan dari tarikh surat ini.

Impugned Decision No. 2

[6] In a follow-up letter dated 22 June 2022, the respondent repeated its request for an adjournment of its 8th AGM to the appellant for reasons of safety.

[7] In the appellant's reply in Impugned Decision No. 2, the appellant refused to adjourn the respondent's 8th AGM for the same reasons stated in its Impugned Decision No. 1, namely, that he does not have the power to do so under the SMA 2013. He ordered the respondent call for its AGM within one month from the date of the letter. Para 3, 4, and 5 of Impugned Decision No. 2 are worded exactly the same as paragraphs in Impugned Decision No. 1 (reproduced in para.[5] above).

[8] The appellant gave the same reason for Impugned Decision No. 2, a