I write on behalf of Reginald Fava, as chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of Chemimart Limited with reference to the article titled A Battle Between Two Pharmacies (July 3).
It is to be noted that the article does not respect the facts as they have emerged through the litigation pending between the Superintendent of Public Health and others and my client.
The application for the issue of a warrant of prohibitory injunction, number 537/10JRM, in the names Collis Williams Limited vs Supretendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika (Superintendent of Public Health) et, filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court to prohibit Chemimart Limited from operating from the premises at 20-21 Republic Street, Valletta , was rejected by the court on May 10, 2010.
Furthermore, by means of a judgement decided by the Court of Appeal on May 11, 2010 as per writ of summons number 278/10 in the names Reginald Fava vs Supretendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika et, it was conclusively decided that the joinder in the suit Collis Williams Limited and others were non-suited as respondents as the legal notice governing the operation of pharmacies in Malta was promulgated in the public interest and not to protect sectorial competing interests. The only competent person at law to issue such licences was the said Superintendent of Public Health who should invariably exercise his authority without fear or favour.
My client had been awarded the right to operate a pharmacy at 20-21, Republic Street, Valletta, as they were unable to continue providing the service from City Gate due to works of national interest undertaken by the competent government authority (picture) and this without prejudice to their demands to have a licence to operate a pharmacy from said premises.
My client has, since 1990, demanded that it be granted a licence to operate such pharmacy from such premises for valid reasons at law as has been confirmed by a judgement of the First Hall of the Civil Court delivered on July 10, 2012 as per writ of summons no. 594/07 LFS in the names Reginald Fava et vs Supretendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika et.
My client demanded that he is entitled to operate the said pharmacy from the premises as the refusal of the Superintendent of Public Health to issue said licence was based on irrelevant considerations and refused for unjust reasons apart from the fact that it was ultra vires.
Furthermore, Collis Williams has no right to determine from where my client could operate his pharmacy, so long as my client is operating within the parameters of the law as existent at the time of his application and as now confirmed by the judgement of the First Hall of the Civil Court of July 10.
Notwithstanding my client’s right to operate a pharmacy from Republic Street, Valletta on its own merits as decided by this judgement, my client was always entitled to operate a pharmacy from these premises until such time as the pharmacy under construction at City Gate is ready and completed.
Despite all this, the Superintendent of Public Health continued to refuse to issue said licence and, in the circumstances, my client had requested the court to issue a warrant of prohibitory injunction not to hinder his operations from the pharmacy in Republic Street, Valletta as the Superintendent of Public Health refused to exercise the discretion granted to him by law. The said warrant, 1987/10JRM in the names Chemimart Limited vs Supretendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, was decreed in my client’s favour on January 6, 2011. My client is consequently operating the pharmacy from the said premises through the effects of the said warrant according to the rule of law.
Since when has the exercise of free trade according to the rule of law become an instrument of sustained damages by a competitor? Has not every citizen, who has the necessary qualifications of a pharmacist and who has applied for the right to open a pharmacy according to regulations in force at the time of application, the right to be given such licence?
One would have imagined that the Superintendent of Public Health would at all times adhere to the decrees of the court as well as to the recommendations of the Ombudsman who, according to a report of July 2007, decided that the present impasse in the issue of pharmacy licences is administratively untenable and constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights and urged the authorities to rectify the situation without any further delay.
It is rather incongruous that The Times, from its inception a bastion for the exercise of freedom and democratic values, can fall prey to sectorial interests of a competitor against another who, after all, demands and expects to exercise his right to trade, freely and democratically, according to the rule of law and regulations in force at the time. However, these values do not seem to be the values of certain business interests thus jeopardising freedom, honesty and integrity while propagating profit to the detriment of the public’s interest and convenience.
Editorial note: The article in question consisted of a report on a judicial letter filed by Collis Williams Ltd against the heath authorities with a brief background of the issue to put the reader in the picture. Surely, neither Dr DeBono nor his client is criticising The Times for doing its duty to keep readers informed. Neither would anybody think of denying one, including a competitor, the right to take court action as and when one deems fit.