ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 17 พ.ย. 2560, 08:59น.

Exercise of Discretion to not Disclose Official Information

According to Section 11 paragraph one of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), the responsible State agency shall provide the official information to the person making the request within a reasonable period of time. Nonetheless, if the official information is the subject to Section 15 paragraph one of the said Act, The Defendant No.2, as the responsible State agency, has the exclusive discretion either to disclose or not to disclose such official information. In this case, the documents requested to disclose by the Plaintiff were considered as the official information in regard to the complaint accusing the Plaintiff of committing a criminal offence or a breach of discipline. Such official information was a ground for carrying out further legal proceedings and appointing the fact-finding commission. When such official information was still in process of investigating, the disclosure thereof might have an adverse effect on investigation process or other relevant evidences, as well as, it would result in the decline in the efficiency of law enforcement or failure to achieve its objectives as prescribed in Section 15 paragraph one (2) of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997). Furthermore, the appointment of fact-finding commission was to preliminarily investigate whether or not the case had sufficient merit to allege that such person committed a disciplinary breach. The Plaintiff was therefore not a party in the case according to Section 31 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996). The Defendant No.2’s order refusing the disclosure of such official information was legitimate.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2560, 08:20น.

Official Duties to Disclose Information of N.C.C. Commission

The inquiry file of a corruption offence from the completed inquiry process was deemed as the information acquired from the performance of duty of Defendant No.2 under the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2540 (1997) and possessed or controlled by Defendant No.1. Such inquiry file was thus the official information according to Section 4 of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997). Furthermore, Defendant No.2 also had the exclusive discretion to determine whether or not the information requested in writing should be disclosed. To exercise such discretion, it was necessary to consider Section 56 of Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), as well as, the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), which is the specific law issuing the disclosure rule of the information in possession or control of a State agency. In this case, there did not exist any reasonable grounds that official information requested to reveal by the plaintiff not to be disclosed. The Information Disclosure Tribunals further considered that Defendants No.1 and No.2 had to disclose such official information in order to verify the transparency in performing their official duties. In addition, according to the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), Defendants No.1 and No.2 were the State agency and the State official, respectively; the decision of the Information Disclosure Tribunal hence had a binding effect. Therefore, when Defendants No.1 and No.2 failed to comply with such decision, it was deemed that both Defendants neglected official duties required by the law to be performed under Section 9(2) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 14 มี.ค. 2560, 09:33น.