One does not simply make a claim of unfair discrimination merely because other wrongdoers went unpunished

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Defendant No. 1’s orders regarding the Plaintiff’s installation of two signboards, deeming the orders lawful. The Court first ruled the installation of the signboards unlawful, as they violated the Building Control Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) and the relevant Ministerial Regulation. The Court then affirmed that the Defendant No. 1 had acted within its authority. Additionally, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendant No. 1 intentionally targeted the Plaintiff, as no action was taken against other instances except the Plaintiff, which constituted an unfair discrimination. In response to this allegation, the Court stated that whether or not the Defendant No. 1 takes enforcement action against violations of the Law on Building Control depends on the particular circumstances and evidence of each case. Moreover, for a claim of unfair discrimination to be valid, one must have a particular legal entitlement that was denied due to discriminatory treatment. Unfair discrimination is not a case where a person, having committed an unlawful act, alleges that other wrongdoers have gone unpunished. Accordingly, the Court ruled the Plaintiff’s claim inadmissible.