AG offers to mediate in consent order regarding Seafield temple

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has offered to play mediator in the matter of the consent order pertaining to the relocation of the Sri Maha Mariamman temple in USJ25, Subang Jaya.

In a statement today, Attorney-General Tommy Thomas also expressed concern over the recent violent incidents surrounding the temple.

“The (incidents) have caused much alarm among the public. Particularly appalling was the brutal attack on a firefighter who was performing his duties.

“The AGC has been briefed by the top-level management of the Royal Malaysia Police on the ongoing investigations.

“The chambers will be working closely with the police in the coming days to bring the full force of the criminal law against everyone implicated in the disturbance, regardless of status,” he said, noting the urgency in dealing with such situations where the law and order were threatened.

Thomas added that he has also directed for the case files to be handled at his headquarters level under the purview of the head of the Prosecution Division who will keep him informed.

“Separately, it is noted that the underlying dispute stems from a consent order recorded in court in civil proceedings.

“I shall be happy to meet the lawyers representing all the parties to resolve their dispute against the background of the power conferred to the attorney-general, in respect of charitable trusts under Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act,” he said.

Earlier today, the High Court in Shah Alam dismissed a stay application against the consent judgment and execution of a writ of possession for the relocation of the temple.

High Court judge Gunalan Muniandy made the ruling in chambers after hearing the application from three Hindu devotees - S Thangaraju, MM Mohanakrishnan and S Nagarajah of the temple’s devotees’ association.

Lawyer Claudia Chee Pek Yee, who acted on behalf of one of the defendants, One City Development Sdn Bhd, said the judge made the ruling after finding that the three had no locus standi in the case and that the developer was the legitimate owner of the land in question. -Mkini