The Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 for documents relating to General Prawit Wongsuwan’s asset concealment allegations, but the Defendant No.1 only provided some of the requested documents stating that the disclosure of other documents was prohibited by law. Despite being ordered by the Information Disclosure Tribunal to disclose the rest of the requested documents to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 insisted that a resolution of the Defendant No.3 was needed to disclose the documents. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the disclosure of information relating to an inquiry which had been concluded would not hinder the conduct of inquiry by the Defendant No.2 or officials of the Defendant No.1 in other ongoing cases based on different allegations. The information that the Plaintiff requested was also a report of facts or information the Defendant No.3 used in making a decision, not an opinion or advice given within the State agency. Thus, the requested information did not fall under Section 15 paragraph one (2) or (3) of the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997), and can be disclosed. In addition, the decision of the Information Disclosure Tribunal was final according to Section 37 paragraph two of the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997), and binding on the three Defendants. Consequently, the three Defendants shall disclose the requested documents to the Plaintiff.
ศาลปกครอง
วิชาการ
สืบค้นข้อมูล
บริการประชาชน
