คำแปลคำวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย

คำแปลคำวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย

The Appraisal of the Price of Land to be Expropriated Inconsistent with the Law
The Royal Irrigation Department has appraised the estimate price of land to be expropriated and set the amount of money to be paid to the Plaintiff at the price of 100,000 baht per Rai for the land other than the land adjacent to Huai Mongkol - Huai Sai Ngam Road and the land adjacent to road, alley, or passage. The price was determined by overall location of most part of the land expropriated. Therefore, if any plot of land has a different location, acquisition or damage, the compensation to be paid for each land is different. The Plaintiff’s land is used in agriculture, even it is not adjacent to road, alley, or passage but when the whole plot of land is expropriated the Plaintiff would therefore be unable to use the land for agriculture. Moreover, the Plaintiff has to find another plot of land with similar conditions to use in agriculture thus, it can be considered that the Plaintiff has suffered substantial damage from the expropriation, even the estimate price of land was higher than the appraised value, but it was not in accordance with the damage that the Plaintiff received. The estimate price of land to be expropriated set by the Royal Irrigation Department is therefore unlawful, inappropriate, and unfair under Section 42 paragraph two of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2550, and Section 21 paragraph one (4) of the Immovable Property Expropriation Act, B.E. 2530. Thus, the appraisal of the price of land should be increased by 40 percent of the appraised price the Plaintiff received by increasing to 140,000 baht per Rai.
อ่าน 244
อ่านรายละเอียด
Administrative Agency’s Duty on Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
When the levee was damaged, the Defendant had performed the duties as required by the law by notifying the contractor of repairing the damaged part of such levee; meanwhile, the Defendant also hired a backhoe truck to rectify the drainage ditch thereof. However, when the levee was more seriously damaged and there was a large amount of water in such levee, it might cause the levee to be irresistible the water force. If the Defendant waited the contractor repairing or adjusting the levee completely, it would be unable to solve the problem in time and would cause such levee collapsing. The Defendant therefore proceeded to primarily rectify by digging the drainage ditch in order to drain water out from the levee; nevertheless, such levee had still collapsed. It was deemed that the Defendant did not willfully or negligently act against another person in violation of law resulting in the injury against his or her property, which would be a tort pursuant to Section 420 of Civil and Commercial Code. Nonetheless, such performances of the Defendant resulted in the damages to the six Plaintiffs; it was considered as the case of other liability that required the Defendant to be liable for the compensation for such.
อ่าน 398
อ่านรายละเอียด
Disclosure Official Information
According to Section 11 paragraph one of the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997), it provides that if any person makes a request for any official information other than the official information already published in the Government Gazette or already made available for public inspection..., the responsible State agency shall provide it to such person within a reasonable period of time. In this case, the Defendant No. 2 did not comply with this Section; therefore, the Court held that he neglected the duty required by the law to be performed or performing such duties with unreasonable delay. Pursuant to Section 28 and Section 32 of the Act, they provide the power to the Defendant No. 1 to summon any person to give statements or, document or evidence for the consideration. However, the Defendant No. 1 did not have the power to summon the Defendant No. 2 to provide official information to the Plaintiff, nor the Defendant No. 1 had to report such complaint to the Council of Ministers. The Court, thus, held that the Defendant No. 1 did not neglect its duties. Accordingly, the judgement of the Administrative Court of First Instance was affirmed in part as modified by the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.
อ่าน 544
อ่านรายละเอียด
The Authority of a Local Official to Permit Street Vending on Public Roads
The Plaintiff, who had a residence and opened a clothing store on Chamroenwithi road, claimed that he was aggrieved by the Announcement of the Defendant Re Conditions and Rules for Allowing Vendors on Chamroenwithi Road, dated 12th August B.E. 2555 (2012), which permitted street vendors to cook food, sell or distribute goods on Chamroenwithi road from 6.00 to 24.00. Due to this Announcement, a noodle stall was set up in front of the Plaintiff’s store, which obscured the building and caused pollution. The Plaintiff therefore requested the Administrative Court to revoke said Announcement. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Defendant stipulated the conditions for vendors to sell goods in specific areas from 6.00 to 24.00—morning shift from 6.00 to 15.30 and afternoon shift from 15.30 to 24.00. By setting the permitted time in this manner, vending was practically allowed all day. The time period that vending was prohibited was only from 00.01 to 05.59, which was the time when most people were resting at home, not going outside. As a result of such permission, street stalls were set up and obscured the front of the Plaintiff’s building as well as other commercial buildings along Chamroenwithi road for the whole day. This caused an undue burden and was neither a temporary nor appropriate permission under the Act on the Maintenance of the Cleanliness and Orderliness of the Country, B.E. 2535 (1992). Consequently, the Announcement of the Defendant Re Conditions and Rules for Allowing Vendors on Chamroenwithi Road, dated 12th August B.E. 2555 (2012), was unlawful and shall be revoked.
อ่าน 494
อ่านรายละเอียด
The Discretionary Power of Administrative Agency in Policy-making Regarding Public Services Facilitation
The Plaintiff, who resided in the area of responsibility of the Defendants, made a written complaint, dated 30th November B.E. 2561 (2018), requesting the Defendant No.1 to install convex traffic mirrors at the junctions of Prachachuen 12 Alley. In spite of that, the Defendant No.1 did not replied to the Plaintiff nor delivered the requested public service. Thus, she filed a plaint with the Administrative Court requesting the Court to order the Defendants to install the convex traffic mirrors as demanded. The Court reaffirmed that the administrative agency had discretionary power to plan out the public services management policy independently while considering practicability, budget, urgency and consequential effects of each choices. Seeing that there were various factors involved that the Defendants had to take into considerations, the Court could not rule over the discretion of the Defendants in policy-making regarding public services facilitations. Given that the relief the Plaintiff sought could not be granted by the Court, the Plaintiff had no standing to file a case in the Court according to Section 42 paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).
อ่าน 438
อ่านรายละเอียด
Termination from police service because of having a criminal record on leading an assembly
The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant No.2 issued an order of the instatement of persons to the police service as Non-Commissioned Officer from candidates who had been selected and had passed the competitive examination for 460 persons, dated 25th September B.E. 2552 (2009). The Plaintiff was instated and appointed to the position of Squad Leader, Crowds Control Sub-Division 2, Protection and Crowds Control Division. Later, the Defendant No.2 issued an order terminating the Plaintiff from his police service due to the fact that he had a record of criminal offence on leading an assembly and gathering of persons relating to low paddy price issue. Therefore, the Plaintiff was considered as a person having bad behavior and lacking of good morals, which resulted in a disqualification as prescribed by Rule 2(2) of the Regulation of the Police Commission on Qualifications and Prohibited Characteristics for Being a Police Officer, B.E. 2547 (2004). The Plaintiff submitted an appeal letter to the Police Commission. The Police Commission had a decision that the order terminating the Plaintiff from police service was lawful. As a result, the Plaintiff filed a plaint with the Administrative Court to adjudicate or order the Defendant No. 1 to revoke the order, date 30th August B.E. 2553 (2010) amended on 11th May B.E. 2554 (2011), only in part of the termination from service. The Administrative Court of First Instance ordered a revocation of the said order. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed.
อ่าน 601
อ่านรายละเอียด
Department of Highways Neglects its Official Duty to Build or Correct A Drainage Passing A Highway
According to Section 32 of the Highways Act, B.E. 2535 (1992), the Defendant has the power to, as necessary, build or correct a drainage passing a highway, or build or correct a drainage from a highway, to deviate water to a nearby public water source. Therefore, in the case where there was a damage owning to the construction of the huge drainage tunnels under Highway No. 33 in order to drain water through such tunnels from the mountain range to the Plaintiffs' land, the Defendant had to solve such problem by performing the duty in compliance with the above-mentioned provision. Despite the fact that the Defendant solved the problem by many means, such as digging a path to enable the water flowing out in parallel with Highway No. 33, the alleviations of such grievance or injury for the Plaintiffs were not adequate. The Plaintiffs were still damaged owning to the drainage of water through the tunnels flowing to their land. Thus, it was deemed that the Defendant did not build or correct a drainage passing a highway pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act. This case was considered that the Defendant committed a wrongful act arising from the neglect of official duties required by the law to perform; the Defendant therefore was required to provide the redress of the grievance or injury for the Plaintiffs by building or correcting a drainage passing a highway so as to prevent the damage upon the Plaintiffs' land.
อ่าน 560
อ่านรายละเอียด
Compensation for not notifying the status of the petition for the monthly old-age allowance to the petitioner
According to Clause 6 (3) and Clause 7 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Criteria and Method for the Disbursement of Subsistence Allowance for Older Persons, B.E. 2552 (2009), an elder person who is about to reach sixty years of age in the next government’s fiscal year must apply for the old-age monthly allowance with the competent authorities in November every year in order to obtain such allowance. Since the Plaintiff claimed to apply for such aid during the unprescribed time yet he was unable to provide any evidence thereof, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive the allowance during the B.E. 2558 government’s fiscal year as he did not follow the stipulated procedure. After examining the Plaintiff’s petitions, the Defendant announced the additional eligibility list for monthly old-age allowance of the B.E. 2559 government’s fiscal year (1st October B.E. 2558 to 30th September B.E. 2559) with the Plaintiff’s name in the list even though he did not adhere to the procedure of the said Ministerial Regulation. The Plaintiff eventually acquired the allowance since October B.E. 2558 henceforward. Therefore, the Defendant did not neglect its official duties required by the law to be performed and did not commit a wrongful act pursuant to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. However, since the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff about the amendment of the eligibility list, the Plaintiff still misunderstood that he had to take further legal actions to gain the monthly allowance. Consequently, the Defendant was liable to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff for the costs incurred from filing several petitions to the relevant authorities and filing a case with Administrative Court in the amount of 5,000 baht.
อ่าน 704
อ่านรายละเอียด
Groin Construction Causing Land Erosion
The Defendant No.1 implemented the Bang Nara Watershed Water Transmission and Maintenance Project. Under the project, it constructed rubber mound groins to prevent shoreline erosion. The Plaintiff claimed that the groin built adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land caused erosion to his land. He was aggrieved by the Defendant No.1’s construction so he filed a case with the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Defendant No.1 accepted that the construction of rubble mound groins caused erosion to the Plaintiff’s property including a parcel of land and coconut trees. Thus, the Defendant No.1 committed a wrongful act against the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. As a State agency who was responsible for the groin construction, the Defendant No.1 shall be liable to the Plaintiff who was injured by the act committed by its official in the course of his performance of duty, pursuant to Section 5 paragraph one of the Act on Liability for Wrongful Act of Officials, B.E. 2539 (1996). To compensate for the damage, the Defendant No.1 shall pay the Plaintiff in the amount of 2,224,000 Thai Baht with interest of 7.5 percent per year from the day the plaint is filed until the Defendant No.1 fully pays compensation, within 60 days from the day the judgment is delivered, the court fees shall be returned to the Plaintiff in proportion to the outcome of the case and other reliefs requested in the plaint shall be dismissed.
อ่าน 593
อ่านรายละเอียด
Wastewater Nuisance Caused by Pig Farming
The Plaintiff was an owner of a land adjacent to a pig farm. Eucalyptus trees planted in his land died because wastewater leaked from a sewage treatment pond through soil and overflew a ridge of soil into the Plaintiff’s land and pond. The Plaintiff made a complaint about the issue to the Defendant No.5 many times and requested the Defendants No.1 to No.5 to order the Defendant No.6 to resolve the nuisance. The Defendant No.6 solved the problem by making the soil ridge bigger to improve the sewage treatment system as instructed by the Defendant No.5 but the wastewater had been continuously leaking from the pig farm to the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff then filed a case with the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Defendants No.4 and No.5 had not performed their duties required by the law, pursuant to Section 9 paragraph one (2) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999). They did not exercise its power to resolve the issue by imposing a fine, suggesting a halt in operation, suspending or revoking a permit, or prohibiting the use or exploitation of the source of pollution under Sections 82 and 83 of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2535.
อ่าน 630
อ่านรายละเอียด

ข้อมูลทั้งหมด 101 รายการ
แสดงข้อมูล
รายการต่อหน้า
  • หน้า 1/11


เขตอำนาจศาลปกครองเขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง
ศาลปกครอง
สืบค้นข้อมูล
ประชาสัมพันธ์
บริการประชาชน