ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

ข้อมูลกฎหมาย/กฎ คำพิพากษา คำสั่งของศาลปกครองสูงสุดในรูปแบบดิจิทัล
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 29 ธ.ค. 2564, 10:17น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 29 ธ.ค. 2564, 10:25น.

Building Repairs within the Area of Historical Site

The Plaintiff was an owner of a land located within the area of historical site, “Roi Et ditches and walls.” The Director of the 10th Regional Office of Fine Arts notified the Plaintiff that she failed to comply with the requirement specified by the law since she had demolished buildings on her land to construct new buildings and ordered the Plaintiff to immediately suspend the construction and tear down the buildings. The Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s appeal and decided that she shall demolish and remove her buildings and clear a construction site. The Plaintiff argued that the order was unlawfully issued so she filed a case with the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Plaintiff’s land located within the area of historical site was considered as a historical site. However, her four buildings were constructed before the Plaintiff’s land was determined as a historical site and those buildings were not or parts of a historical site. Thus, the Plaintiff was able to repair them without permission of the Defendant or the 10th Regional Office of Fine Arts pursuant to the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums. Moreover, the Plaintiff merely repaired the buildings not construct new buildings. The Defendant did not have power under the said Act to order the Plaintiff to demolish and remove her buildings and clear a construction site. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s decision was unlawfully issued. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance to revoke the order issued by the Defendant in effect retrospectively on the day the order was issued.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2564, 09:18น.

Unlawful Order to Assist Other Department in the Performance of Functions

A plan and policy analyst position was held to a higher performance standard than a government service officer position. The job description of the plan and policy analyst and the government service officer position were distinctly different in terms of knowledge and capabilities. The Mayor ordered a municipal officer, a policy and plan analyst, to assist other department in the performance of administration tasks without a specific job description or available position. The Mayor’s order resulted in decreasing roles and responsibilities of the municipal officer and lacking opportunities to increase knowledge, capabilities and experience required for promotion to a higher-level position. The Plaintiff still held the plan and policy analysis position and received the same amount of salary, and was not deprived of either rights and benefits, or a status of a municipality officer; however, the Plaintiff who was ordered to assist other department in the performance of functions was inevitably aggrieved or injured. Thus, the Plaintiff was entitled to file a case with the Court, according to Section 42 paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999). Although the Mayor shall have power to manage personnel in the Municipality so as to successfully provide public services, he must have justification to issue the order and shall comply with the prescribed laws, regulations and rules. If the Mayor did so, his discretion would be lawfully exercised. The job description and duties and responsibilities of the plan and policy analyst (Level 4) and the government service officer position were clearly different. In addition, there was no fact presented that any effect or injury would occur if the order was not issued. Accordingly, the Mayor’s issuance of the order was the unlawful exercise of discretion

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2564, 13:06น.

Unlawful Order to Not Score an Examination

The Plaintiff’s mobile phone inside his bag, which was placed outside an examination room, continuously rang about 10 times while he was taking an examination for entry to the Doctor of Medicine program. As a result, the Defendant No.2 did not score the Plaintiff’s test paper providing that he violated the Rule of the Consortium of Thai Medical Schools on Examination which requires an examinee to turn off his or her mobile phone or other communication devices. The Administrative Court held that the Plaintiff complied with the Rule. He powered off his mobile phone but the sound ringing from his mobile phone was an alarm which he set to study. The Plaintiff could not use the mobile phone while he was taking the exam since the mobile phone was 20 - 25 meters away from the examination room. Although, the Rule provides that if it is found that there is a sound or a communication signal, or there is incompliance with the Rule, it is deemed that there is an intention to cheat an examination and the exam will not be scored, it was not an absolute presumption which could not be proved otherwise. The Defendant No.2 exercised its discretion inconsistent with the legal purpose and exercised its power without considering facts along with other circumstances. The order not to score the examination was unlawfully issued by the Defendant No.2. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance to revoke the order of the Defendant No.2 not to score the examination for entry to the Doctor of Medicine program in the year of 2011.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 8 มี.ค. 2564, 09:15น.