คำแปลคำวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย
คำแปลคำวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย
Given that the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2550 (2007), did not recognise the right to bear arms as a constitutional right, the local firearm registrar shall have discretion over the issuance of a firearm and ammunition licence in accordance with Section 7 and Section 9 of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Imitation Firearms Act, B.E. 2490 (1947). Without the recognition of the inherent right to bear arms in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2550 (2007), the rejection order of an application for a licence for a firearm and ammunition shall not be deemed as an administrative order that may affect the rights of the parties in the manner that requires the local firearm registrar to give the parties an opportunity to sufficiently know the facts and to present their evidence opposing thereto before issuing the administrative order according to Section 30 paragraph one of the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996). In other words, when the Plaintiff submitted an application for a licence for a firearm and ammunition, the said application did not have any rights as its legal basis; thus, the rejection of firearm licence issuance by the Defendant No. 1 was just as an affirmation of the fact that there was no such right of the Plaintiff to be affected by the administrative proceeding to begin with. Providing that the Plaintiff already acquired five firearms, the Defendant No. 1 lawfully exercised his discretion to reject the issuance of the new licence for the firearm and ammunition on the basis that the firearms in possession of the Plaintiff are deemed to be far beyond necessary for the purpose of defending oneself and one’s properties.
The Plaintiffs reside in the vicinity of the Defendant No. 4’s lignite mine, in which mud snail fossils were found. The Defendant No. 1 issued a resolution reserving an 18-rai area within the concession certificate for the conservation of the fossils. The Plaintiffs argued that the 18-rai area was not adequate and filed a case with the Administrative Court, seeking the revocation of the said resolution, the Defendants No. 2 and No. 3 to perform their official duties, and the Defendant No. 4 to cease mining operation and comply with relevant requirements. The Supreme Administrative Court held that as fossils were not “Antiques” by virtue of the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art, and National Museums, B.E. 2504 (1961), the Defendant No. 1 had no legal authority and duty to direct the Fine Arts Department to take part in the examination. The reservation of the fossil area was authorized by the Minerals Act, B.E. 2510 (1967), and the decision was made thoroughly and in accordance with the Principle of Proportionality. Therefore, the Defendant No. 1’s resolution was lawful. The Court held further that the Defendant No. 4’s concession certificate was not issued as a result of a mistake or misunderstanding, and the Defendant No. 4’s operation destroying the fossil beyond the 18-rai area was authorized by the lawful resolution, and did not indicate that the Defendant No. 1 neglected its official duties. Moreover, the matters of EIA were under the responsibility of other agencies, and the Defendant No. 4 had complied with the relevant requirements. Consequently, the Defendants No. 2 and No. 3 did not neglect their official duties either.

ข้อมูลทั้งหมด 124 รายการ
แสดงข้อมูล
รายการต่อหน้า
  • หน้า 1/13