ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

ข้อมูลกฎหมาย/กฎ คำพิพากษา คำสั่งของศาลปกครองสูงสุดในรูปแบบดิจิทัล
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

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.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2563, 09:52น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2563, 14:59น.

The Delayed Disclosure of Official Information by the State Agency not directly causing the Plaintiff’s Grievances

According the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), there was no specific period of time for the State agency to provide official information to the person making the request thereof, the State agency had to comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996), as well as the Cabinet Resolution issuing on December 28th, 2003, the policy in rapidly providing the official information to people that all State agencies must be complied with. According to the said Cabinet Resolution, if the request of the official information is made for an excessive amount or it is unable to complete the process providing thereof within 15 days, the State agency shall notify the person making such request within 15 days, including the specified date that such requested process shall be completed. In this case, Defendant No.1 as the State agency spent 298 days in providing the requested official information without notifying the Plaintiff of the specified date that such requested process should be completed; therefore, it was deemed that Defendant No.1 performed official duties required by the law to be performed with unreasonable delay. Furthermore, according to Section 28 of the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996), the inquiry proceedings of the commission of disciplinary inquiry was an administrative proceeding and the official might verify the facts of the matters as appropriate. When the requested documents were not the evidence that might be used to defend her allegation, the Plaintiff did not need to use such documents for challenging the administrative proceedings. Thus, the Plaintiff’s grievances were not the direct results from Defendant No.1’s delayed disclosure of the official information; Defendant No.1 was not liable for the compensation for such in accordance to Section 420 of Civil and Commercial Code and Section 5 paragraph one of the Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials Act, B.E. 2539 (1996).

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 16 ม.ค. 2563, 08:16น.