The Plaintiff was an owner of a land adjacent to a pig farm. Eucalyptus trees planted in his land died because wastewater leaked from a sewage treatment pond through soil and overflew a ridge of soil into the Plaintiff’s land and pond. The Plaintiff made a complaint about the issue to the Defendant No.5 many times and requested the Defendants No.1 to No.5 to order the Defendant No.6 to resolve the nuisance. The Defendant No.6 solved the problem by making the soil ridge bigger to improve the sewage treatment system as instructed by the Defendant No.5 but the wastewater had been continuously leaking from the pig farm to the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff then filed a case with the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Defendants No.4 and No.5 had not performed their duties required by the law, pursuant to Section 9 paragraph one (2) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999). They did not exercise its power to resolve the issue by imposing a fine, suggesting a halt in operation, suspending or revoking a permit, or prohibiting the use or exploitation of the source of pollution under Sections 82 and 83 of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2535.
ศาลปกครอง
วิชาการ
สืบค้นข้อมูล
ประชาสัมพันธ์
บริการประชาชน