ศาลปกครอง

The Discretionary Power of Administrative Agency in Policy-making Regarding Public Services Facilitation

The Plaintiff, who resided in the area of responsibility of the Defendants, made a written complaint, dated 30th November B.E. 2561 (2018), requesting the Defendant No.1 to install convex traffic mirrors at the junctions of Prachachuen 12 Alley. In spite of that, the Defendant No.1 did not replied to the Plaintiff nor delivered the requested public service. Thus, she filed a plaint with the Administrative Court requesting the Court to order the Defendants to install the convex traffic mirrors as demanded. The Court reaffirmed that the administrative agency had discretionary power to plan out the public services management policy independently while considering practicability, budget, urgency and consequential effects of each choices. Seeing that there were various factors involved that the Defendants had to take into considerations, the Court could not rule over the discretion of the Defendants in policy-making regarding public services facilitations. Given that the relief the Plaintiff sought could not be granted by the Court, the Plaintiff had no standing to file a case in the Court according to Section 42 paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).

Academic_060123_092216.pdf (162.44B)

ปรับปรุงข้อมูลเมื่อ : 6 ม.ค. 2566

เขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง

ศาลปกครอง

สืบค้นข้อมูล

ประชาสัมพันธ์

บริการประชาชน

ที่อยู่ติดต่อ