In the latest polemic to arise from the Valletta pharmacy relocation controversy, Chemimart’s Reginald Fava has hit back at the GRTU’s stance against the granting of a temporary licence for Chemimart to operate from premises in Republic Street after being forced out of Freedom Square to make way for the City Gate project.
In his letter, Mr Fava replies to allegations made last week in the GRTU’s newSTRING publication, which were reported by this newspaper last week.
“I believe the facts are not as concocted by GRTU as it is known to all that Chemimart Limited had its pharmacy at 3 Freedom Square, Valletta for the past 45 years and together with the other pharmacy owners in Valletta rendered a public service from its outlet.
“The GRTU and the four pharmacy owners involved in this lawsuit are objecting to the Superintendent of Public Health authorising the temporary relocation of an existing licence for my company to operate the pharmacy from 20/21 Republic Street, Valletta as they claim that he is not authorised to do so according to the regulations made under the Medicine’s Act.
“It is to be noted that I did not ask for a relocation of the pharmacy out of choice, as I was and still am happy to continue rendering a service to the public from my present premises. Unfortunately, due to the project undertaken by the government for the embellishment of City Gate and the rebuilding of the Royal Opera House, my lease was forcefully terminated.
“It is evident that the GRTU and these pharmacy owners who are objecting to the granting of this temporary relocation of the same licence are not in favour of the free movement of services despite the fact that my company is already a player in the field and has been so for a great number of years.
“The GRTU and these pharmacy owners is incorrect in stating that the regulations do not allow the Superintendent of Public Health to temporary relocate this already existing licence which currently lapses on 31 December 2010. They expect that I should not have a right to continue operating this pharmacy until the new premises are suitably refurbished. They contend that I have no right to continue rendering the service to the public despite the fact that I have a current valid licence. The reason is obvious! They want to increase their sale turnover and profitability at my company’s expense. This is blatantly unjust and an unjustifiable action on the part of these four Valletta pharmacy owners in a democratic society. If they have expected rights then what are my rights when my company holds a valid licence up to 31 December 2010 which is automatically renewable? I am not asking for a new licence. What I am asking for is to retain what I already have.
“Apart from the fact that from legal advice given to me and from the judgement of The First Hall of the Civil Court, the Superintendent of Public Health was not justified in not granting my company the temporary relocation of my pharmacy for the reasons stipulated in the judgement. The law specifically grants the Superintendent of Public Health the right to issue my company with this temporary relocation of a licence in the event of a material change in circumstances. What is more of a material change than a forced closure on account of a national project of embellishment!
“The GRTU keeps insisting that the regulations do not allow the Superintendent of Public Health to issue this temporary relocation of a licence when they know that Regulation (4) does not apply, and specifically excludes, pharmacies holding a licence on the day of coming into force of those regulations from the 300-metre limitation. Despite all this, even without the existence of this saving clause, my company maintains that the Superintendent of Public Health is still empowered to issue a temporary relocation of a licence as the regulations only cater for a permanent transfer of a licence. The Superintendent of Public Health, in the event of a material change in circumstances, can allow the relocation of a pharmacy.
“It is shameful that the GRTU has the audacity to consider the judgement of the First Hall of the Civil Court as ‘chewing gum treatment’ twisting and turning around of the laws of the land. It is evident that they do not know what they are saying and that they do not want to abide by the rule of law and the interpretation given by the Judiciary but only want some of their members i.e. the four Valletta pharmacy owners, to fatten their pockets at the expense of my company. Shame! They also do not have at heart the employment of my employees and their families in my pharmacy at a time when the country has just started to emerge from a recession. With their actions their intentions are to muzzle the Superintendent of Public Health in the execution of his duties not for reasons which are equitable, reasonable and acceptable but only to further their economic interests.
“It is incredible how the GRTU and the other pharmacy owners are incapable of recognising the milestone decision of the First Hall of the Civil Court in favour of the citizen against the might of the state. This judgement has recognised that the impotency of a public authority that chooses to stand and stare, because of a potential or real fear of a reaction rather than taking the decisions that the authority is duty bound to take, is not acceptable in a democratic society and is considered to be unreasonable and illegitimate. The decision maker must take the obligatory relevant considerations into account and if he fails to do so, the judicial review will set him right.
“My company has acted according to law and decided with responsibility to submit itself to the judicial process according to the rule of law and therefore one does not understand why the GRTU claims that my company has suborned the whole process of the law when it has submitted to it. It is evident that it is the GRTU that does not want to submit to the rule of law because it claims arrogantly that the Courts, according to them, acted abusively and illegally when it is evident that the Court stood for the citizen against the might of a public authority.”