The Plaintiffs reside in the vicinity of the Defendant No. 4’s lignite mine, in which mud snail fossils were found. The Defendant No. 1 issued a resolution reserving an 18-rai area within the concession certificate for the conservation of the fossils. The Plaintiffs argued that the 18-rai area was not adequate and filed a case with the Administrative Court, seeking the revocation of the said resolution, the Defendants No. 2 and No. 3 to perform their official duties, and the Defendant No. 4 to cease mining operation and comply with relevant requirements. The Supreme Administrative Court held that as fossils were not “Antiques” by virtue of the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art, and National Museums, B.E. 2504 (1961), the Defendant No. 1 had no legal authority and duty to direct the Fine Arts Department to take part in the examination. The reservation of the fossil area was authorized by the Minerals Act, B.E. 2510 (1967), and the decision was made thoroughly and in accordance with the Principle of Proportionality. Therefore, the Defendant No. 1’s resolution was lawful. The Court held further that the Defendant No. 4’s concession certificate was not issued as a result of a mistake or misunderstanding, and the Defendant No. 4’s operation destroying the fossil beyond the 18-rai area was authorized by the lawful resolution, and did not indicate that the Defendant No. 1 neglected its official duties. Moreover, the matters of EIA were under the responsibility of other agencies, and the Defendant No. 4 had complied with the relevant requirements. Consequently, the Defendants No. 2 and No. 3 did not neglect their official duties either.
