Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email I’m sure everyone’s familiar with the case of mini market owner Subramaniam who have been summoned few times by the local council. The court ruled recently that the summons are invalid as the local council don’t have authority to haul someone to court via summons (that’s what I understood). Efforts are underway to change the law, so while that is happening, let’s look at the news below.
Questions are abound. Why wasn’t he given license after 2005? Was he offered an alternative place which he declined? Did he commit some crime like not paying fees or duit kopi(!)? Or was the place marked for development? Or did he vote for the other side? Or someone jealous of his business? Was he selling unauthorised items? Or any complaints on cleanliness by residents? Did he cheat customers? Any sane person would like to know why the license was not renewed, but newspaper did not mention it. When the information is not forthcoming, can you blame people like me for guessing all kinds of reasons?
Would it been different if the owner was not an Indian or Chinese? I like to say no, but well, we being Second (or is it Fourth?) Class citizen and all…
I remember the Pahang Indian Chamber of Commerce making some noise, that’s about it.
Mini-market owner Subra maniam Gopal was charged for the third time this year in the magistrate’s court here with the same four offences of operating his business in 2006 without a licence from the Temerloh Municipal Council.
Once again, Subramaniam, 50, pleaded not guilty to four charges of operating the GSM Mini Market on 10A Jalan Besar Lanchang in Lanchang, Pahang, without a licence on March 10, March 17, April 18 and June 6 in 2006.
Magistrate Ida Rahayu Sharif fixed Jan 26 for mention of the case after his counsel Datuk M. Ramachelvam told the court that they would be raising preliminary objections and Deputy Public Prosecutor Ellyna Othman did not object.
On Dec 1, High Court Judicial Commissioner Akhtar Tahir had released the grounds of his judgment for his Sept 11 landmark decision that Section 120 of the Local Government Act, which had been used by the council to prosecute Subramaniam the first time round, was unconstitutional because it empowered the council to institute prosecutions when Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution gave that right solely to the Attorney-General.
It is believed the same objection will be taken against yesterday’s charges.
On Nov 22, the Sunday Star frontpaged the Sept 11 judgment and ramifications for local councils nationwide.
In his oral judgment that day, JC Akhtar had also ordered Subramaniam be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
On the following Tuesday, the council served Subramaniam with fresh summonses from the council for the same offences and he was charged on Nov 25 for a second time.
After his not guilty plea was taken, Ida Rahayu allowed DPP Nurshafini Mustafa’s application for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal as the council had applied wrongly for the summonses.
Outside the court yesterday, Subramaniam said he had been running his shop since 1979 and had always had a licence until 2005 when the council rejected his application for a renewal.
“I do not have any alternative to earn a living. I have children studying overseas to support.
“What is happening to me now is not fair as I have been running this business for so many years and I have to continue doing this. Let me live in peace,” he said.
Ramachelvan said his client was in a bind whether to stop or continue with the business because it was his livelihood.
