ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

ข้อมูลกฎหมาย/กฎ คำพิพากษา คำสั่งของศาลปกครองสูงสุดในรูปแบบดิจิทัล
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 8 มี.ค. 2564, 09:15น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2564, 15:16น.

Condition of Degree Recognition Inconsistent with the Law

The Plaintiff No.1 applied for a license for professional practice (associate engineer) to the Defendant but it requested the Plaintiff No.1 to take an examination of specific required courses for obtaining the license. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the requirement provided in the Council of Engineers Regulation on Recognition of Degree, Diploma, or Certificate for Regulated Engineering Professional Practice, B.E. 2543 (2000) was not applied to the Plaintiff No.1 since he enrolled in a program prior to the academic year of 2001. However, the Plaintiff No.1 was subject to the Announcement of the Council of Engineers No. 4/2554 on Application for a License for Professional Practice (Associate Engineer). He graduated in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil Engineering) from A University by earning more credits as required by the Announcement; he thus did not have to pass either an examination of specific engineering courses or basic engineering and specific engineering courses. Additionally, the Defendant recognized the Engineering program of A University by the condition that an applicant for the license who graduated from A University has to take an examination of engineering for obtaining the license without any exception. The condition did comply with the Council of Engineers Regulation on Issuance of a License for Professional Practice (Associate Engineer) and the Announcement of the Council of Engineers No. 4/2554 so the rules were not enforceable. Therefore, the Defendant’s order requesting the Plaintiff No.1 to take the examination for acquiring the license was unlawful pursuant to Section 9 paragraph one (1) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 4 ธ.ค. 2563, 11:02น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 6 ส.ค. 2563, 13:22น.

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Permission for the Use of Land in a Land Reform Area

The Plaintiff No.1 was informed by a village headman that the Defendants No.2 to No.6 falsely provided information to the Office of Provincial Agricultural Land Reform, Nakorn Sri Thammarat, and the Defendant No.1 took the information into consideration and granted the Defendants No.2 to No.6 permission for the use of five parcels of land which the Plaintiffs No.1 to No.3 possessed. The Plaintiffs could not acquire the disputed lands so they filed a case with the Administrative Court of the First Instance. According to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice which had the cause of action related to this case, the evidence of the Plaintiff No.1 was more reliable than the evidence of the Defendants No.2 to No.6. It could be concluded that the Defendants No.2 to No.6 did not use the disputed lands so they were not entitled to acquire the lands. Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court determined that the Defendants No.2 to No.6 were not a farmer who possessed a state land and operated agriculture in a land reform area so they were not entitled to use the disputed lands. As a result, the resolution of the Defendant No.1 granting permission for the use of land to the Defendants No.2 to No.6 was invalid. The Defendant No.1 abused its discretion by unlawfully issuing the order without adequate reason. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed the judgment of the Administrative Court of First Instance to revoke the resolution of the Defendant No.1 in effect of the date of issuance and dismiss the plaint filed against the Defendants No.2 to No.6.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2563, 10:53น.

Liability without fault of Administrative Agency in Water Management Practice

The accelerated drainage and water diversion practices for the propose of damage control by the Royal Irrigation Department are the water management practices within the scope and in accordance with the purpose of the Royal Irrigation Act B.E. 2485 which is the prevention of disaster whereas the public interests must be considered. The water management is proceeding in accordance with the powers and duties stipulated by law. Where there is no unlawful act, there can be no conviction for torts from injuring the individual. However, if the said act caused damage to the rights of any person, the administrative agency is liable to compensate for damage. The purpose is to protect the rights of individuals who are especially burdened by the government's other liability actions. However, the compensation, in this case, is not compensation of torts which the purpose of compensatory damages in tort law is to place a plaintiff as far as possible in the position in which they would have been or had the wrong not occurred. In this case, it is compensation for damages that are more than usual caused by the actions of administrative agencies. When the damage partly caused by heavy rainfall that is a natural disaster and another part was caused by accelerated drainage from the dam, therefore, the causes of flooding in the injured persons’ property were a result of both nature and administrative agency factors. The administrative agency must compensate only for damages that caused by water management without claiming that the damages were caused by natural disaster and exercised its authority in a manner that is consistent with the law so, it shall not be liable for any damage.