The Plaintiffs resided in the vicinity of the National Reserved Forests and were aggrieved by the Defendants No. 1 to No. 3 granting a permit to the Defendant No. 6 to make use or reside in the National Reserved Forests for industrial mining, and by the Defendants No. 4 and No. 5 renewing the Defendant No. 6’s concession certificate. The Supreme Administrative Court found that there remained unresolved disputes with the local residents and no approval had been obtained from the Subdistrict Administrative Organization Council. Therefore, the issuance of the permit was not in compliance with Clause 8(5) of the Regulation of the Royal Forest Department on the Permission to Make Use or Reside in the National Reserved Forests, B.E. 2548 (2005), and the renewal of the concession certificate was inconsistent with Clause 27(4) of the Regulation of the Department of Primary Industries and Mines on the Operations Concerning with the Application for, the Issuance of, the Renewal of, and the Transfer of a Concession Certificate, B.E. 2547 (2004). Moreover, in making the renewal decision, the Defendants did not take into account the considerations proposed in the rapid health impact assessment (Rapid HIA), and the fact that the ancient monument was registered including a cave nearby the concession certificate area. As a result, the grounds and justification for exercising the discretion were inappropriate and incompatible with the changing context of the community and the environment. Ultimately, the Court held that the permit and the renewal decision were unlawful, and accordingly affirmed the judgment of the Administrative Court of First Instance that revoked both of them.
