SUMAYYAH - QUESTION 2
Section 4 of the Transportation Act 2011 (fictitious) has given power to any town council to make regulations in relation to issuance of bus permit in the town. Subsequently, Luku Langsat Town Council (LLTC) issued a regulation which was known as Luku Langsat School Bus Permit Regulations 2012 (fictitious). Amongst the important provisions of the regulations are as follows:
ULTRA VIRES DOCTRINE
IV. Whether all the regulations in Rule 6 have retrospective effect or not?
- Have retrospective effect
- Cases :
Kerajaan Malaysia v Wong Pot Heng (1997) 1 MLJ 437
Attorney General v Cold Storage (Singapura) Pte Ltd (1979) 1 MLJ 277
III. Whether the permit issued under these regulations in Rule 5 is ultra vires the Federal Constitution or not?
CONCLUSION :
As the conclusion, Degil can only bring the case to the court for judicial review on the ground that Rule 3 is unreasonable, Rule 5 is ultra vires the Federal Constitution and Rule 6 has retrospective effect. Thus, it can be said that the subsidiary legislation made by the local authority is ultra vires and invalid. However, Rule 4 cannot be challenged as it is not a financial levy.
- Ultra Vires the FC
- Cases :
Osman v Public Prosecutor (1968) 2 MLJ 137
The Cheng Poh v Public Prosecutor (1979) 1 MLJ 50.
ISSUES :
I. Whether the requirement to become members of the Luku Langsat School Bus Operators Association before they are allowed to commence services in Rule 3 is reasonable or not?
II. Whether the monthly fee of RM50.00 in Rule 4 is financial levy or not?
III. Whether the permit issued under these regulations in Rule 5 is ultra vires the Federal Constitution or not?
IV. Whether all the regulations in Rule 6 have retrospective effect or not?
ii. Whether the monthly fee of RM50.00 in Rule 4 is financial levy or not?
I. Whether the requirement to become members of the Luku Langsat School Bus Operators Association before they are allowed to commence services in Rule 3 is reasonable or not?
- Not a Financial levy
- Cases :
AG v Wilts United Dairies [1922] KB 897
M.P Pillay v PP [1977] 1 MLJ 228
- Unreasonable
- Cases :
Arlidge v lslington Corporation [1909] 2 KB 127
Air India v Nergesh Mirza AIR 1981 S.C. 1829
Rule 3: All school bus operators are required to become members of the Luku Langsat School Bus Operators Associations before they are allowed to commence services
Rule 4: Every member of the Association is required to pay a monthly fee of RM50.00 to the Luku Langsat Environment Conservation Fund for the purposes of conserving and protecting the environment against any pollution caused by the discharge of smoke school buses
Rule 5: A permit issued under these regulations cannot be used if the school bus is driven by a woman.
Rule 6: All the regulations are deemed to be enforceable from January 2011.
Degil’s permit has been cancelled because he refused to pay the monthly contribution to the Environment Conservation Fund and he also refused to become a member of the Luku Langsat School Bus Operators Association. Degil’s school bus was driven by his wife. Degil is dissatisfied with the cancellation of his permit. Advise him.