According to Section 11 paragraph one of the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997), it provides that if any person makes a request for any official information other than the official information already published in the Government Gazette or already made available for public inspection..., the responsible State agency shall provide it to such person within a reasonable period of time. In this case, the Defendant No. 2 did not comply with this Section; therefore, the Court held that he neglected the duty required by the law to be performed or performing such duties with unreasonable delay. Pursuant to Section 28 and Section 32 of the Act, they provide the power to the Defendant No. 1 to summon any person to give statements or, document or evidence for the consideration. However, the Defendant No. 1 did not have the power to summon the Defendant No. 2 to provide official information to the Plaintiff, nor the Defendant No. 1 had to report such complaint to the Council of Ministers. The Court, thus, held that the Defendant No. 1 did not neglect its duties. Accordingly, the judgement of the Administrative Court of First Instance was affirmed in part as modified by the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.
ศาลปกครอง
วิชาการ
สืบค้นข้อมูล
ประชาสัมพันธ์
บริการประชาชน