Statement on the revocation of MaTIC's, heritage site status 
Jan 7 2017, 11:08 PM
QUOTE
First, section 31(2) of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), which was cited in the notice, describes the process for designation of a heritage site. It does not deal with revocation of a gazetted site. And we understand that this site, which comprises Lots 45 and 139 (Section 58) and part of Lot 158 (Section 57), was gazetted (Gazetted Number P.U. (B) 290) as “Warisan” on the National Heritage Register on 16 June 2016. The criteria for listing specified in documents from JWN refers to its historical importance as well as its architectural and aesthetic character.
The National Heritage Act (NHA) does not have any provision for revocation of gazettal of a heritage site. Therefore, it would appear that unless the NHA is amended to allow for this, it is questionable if the commissioner has the power to revoke a site which has already been gazetted; i.e. is this revocation ultra vires the Act?
The National Heritage Act (NHA) does not have any provision for revocation of gazettal of a heritage site. Therefore, it would appear that unless the NHA is amended to allow for this, it is questionable if the commissioner has the power to revoke a site which has already been gazetted; i.e. is this revocation ultra vires the Act?
Sorry to break your bubbles ladies and gentlemen. the court stance have been very clear in several of the landmark cases. if there is an "enabling provision" to an act, automatically it is deemed that the draughtsmen of the Parliament also intend for the act to provide power to remove and/or disable and/or to counter certain provision. It cannot be the case whereby an act confers power to a body to do something but does not provide a provision for the revocation of the same.
Quote
0.0115sec
0.44
6 queries
GZIP Disabled