VT7 answer to the Administrative Supreme Court Appeal

Appealing of Court Order or Method

Relief measure provision before Judgment

Black Case No. 54/2007

The Administrative Court of Rayong Province

Date 8 May 2008

Nai Tenbult Alewis Maria Plaintiff No. 1 and 10 Associates

Between

Pattaya City Hall Official Defendant No. 1

And View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Co. Defendant No. 2

I, View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Company Limited by its authorized representative, Nai Preecha Techamuanvaivit No. 2 ………………….. the defendant of the case, would submit my motion to appeal the Court Order to the Supreme Court of Administration to revoke or amend the order for the benefit of justice and to relief the damage for the defendants according to the following appealing cause:

1. The Court has order View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Co. to be the joint defendant no. 2 as the Court deems that the defendant no. 2 has an interest in this case. During the hearing on 28 March 2008 at 10.00 a.m., the defendant no. 2 was also informed by the Court of the provisional relief measure in the same hearing.

During the examination of the parties in the stage of consideration the motion for provision protection before judgment of the 10 plaintiffs, it appeared that following facts have been disclosed:

Nai Amnaj Thiengtham was the authorized lawyer of the 10 plaintiff and testified that the defendant no. 2, had constructed the building at merely 100 meter from the MSL and not 200 meter according to the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 B.E. 2521 issued under the virtue of Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479. The construction is now passing the foundation piling stage moving on to the construction of pillars. However, the sheet piling around the construction site has not been done after 17.00 hrs.

The measuring point used by the 10 plaintiffs to determine 200 meter distance according to the Ministerial Regulation 9 is from the MSL level meaning that the lowest tide of the sea. If the measurement starts from this point, the distance of the construction site of the defendant no. 2 would have been 200 meter according to the Ministerial Regulation being referred.

Mr. Pornsak Piyakamolrat, the Civil Engineer 7, who is the proxy of the defendant no. 1 testified that the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E 2519) and Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued under the Construction Control Act B.E. 2547 are both enforced and in effect. Ministerial Regulation No. 8, Clause 3, the 100 meter starts from the construction restriction area appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree B.E. 2499. Ministerial Regulation No. 9, later on, issued to extend the measuring distance to 200 meter from the construction restriction area appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 which outward into the seashore. The 100 meter distance according to the Ministerial Regulation No. 8, and the 200 meter prescribed under Ministerial Regulation No. 9 are, therefore, the same point.

According to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 the construction restriction area shall be extended by 100 meter from the shoreline at MSL. The MSL is the natural highest sea tide. The building of defendant no. 2 is about 205 meter far from the construction restriction area according to the Ministerial Regulation No. 9.

Nai Preecha Techamuanvaivit, the lawyer of defendant no. 2 testified that both Ministerial Regulation No. 8 and Ministerial Regulation No. 9, issued under the Royal Decree B.E. 2479, should now become obsolete.

Having considered the file of the case, the Court gave his order to the defendant no. 2 to suspend the construction granted by Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 until further judgment with effective from the date of Court order issued.

2. With all respect to the Court’s decision, but the defendant no. 2 believes in good faith that the considered measure to give such order to the defendant no. 2 is unreasonable and thus caused severe damage to the defendant no. 2, the Court is requested to revoke or amend such order. The defendant no. 2 also inspected the file of the case after such order had been issued and found that the clarification dated 4 April 2007 of the defendant no. 1 was recorded into case file on 9 April 2007 at 15.00 hours after which the Court ordered such clarification be received and recorded in the following day which is after the issuance of Court’s order.

The Construction Permit dated 28 November 2006 issued by Pattaya City (defendant no. 1) is therefore a legal document. The process of determination of 100 meter measurement from MSL ± 0.00 onto the land of conflict by the Officer before application of the Construction Permit on 24 April 2007 was also legally done.

In view of the foregoing supporting background, the case requires no further examination and is reasonable to all the defense issues. I request the Court to dismiss the case filed by those 10 plaintiffs. Should the Court deem that any further examination be required, I would request that the order for provisional protection before judgment be completely revoked to relief the damage of the defendant no.2 who ought not to deserve such damage.

Yours respectfully……………………………………

Mr. Preecha Techamuanvaivit

Authorized Person

Note: Mr. Preecha Techamuanvaivit is VT7 Lawyer!