Is it not a traitors statement by Asia LawWorks at the Rayong Court hearing what left the injunction? Read the ending statement from the court below.
“When 2nd Plaint Receiver requested the Administrative court of Rayong Province to cancel the order of Injunction before judgment while the case is still on trial of this court, therefore the First Administrative Court had prior right to cancel the procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment.
The order of canceling the Injunction by the First Administrative Court which ordered to cancel the procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment by seizing the construction under license No: 162 / 2549, Issued date: November 28, 2549 of 2nd Plaint Receiver, only for the part of building that higher than 14 meters from road surfaces until other order or judgment is given was in agreement with Clause 77 of the Regulations of General Meeting of Supreme Court of Administration governing the Administrative Enquiry Procedures of B.E. 2543 together with Phrase 1 of Article 262 of the Civil Code.
“The claim of 8 Plaintiffs in the Appeal stated that the measurement starting point to find the distance of 200 meters to be in accord with Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) which stipulated following the Construction Control Act of B.E> 2479 and amended by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) which stipulated following the Construction Control Act of B.E> 2479 IS AT High Tide line along the Coast Line NOT at the distance of 100 meters from the MSL along Coast Line OUTWARD to the sea however, is the issue concerning tenor of the case which needed to be considered after. The Appeal of 8 Plaint Receivers which stated that the cancellation of Injunction order given by the First Administrative Court was done without enough ground is not reasonable to be taken to proceed.
Therefore the court stands the same order to be in agreement with the order given by the First Administrative Court.
_Signed_ : Assigned Judicial
Mr. Worapot Wisrutpitch
Judicial of the Supreme Court of Administration”
Now compare Issue 9 update with the original Issue 8:
Ministerial Regulation
Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)
Issued under the Building Construction Control Act
B.E. 2479
Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)
Issued under the Building Construction Control Act
B.E. 2479
By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:
1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the followings statement:
“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2520”
2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the following statement:
“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
Place for keeping and selling fuel
• Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).
General Lek Naewmalee
Minister of Interior
(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)
Civil Engineer Grade 7
Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.
Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)
Certified correct
(Mr. Yuthana Rittisit)
Administrative Officer
Public Utility Section
Ministerial Regulation
Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)
Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479
By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:This Ministerial Regulation applies to the boundary line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479.”
2. The land areas under this Ministerial Regulation are restricted from construction of the following buildings:
3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
• Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
The area under Article 3 above, Construction of building, house must be at least 8 meters away from Highway No. 3135.
Building or house construction must be provided with 75% open, and uncovered space of size to the land plot on which the construction is applied for.
This Ministerial Regulation is given on the date of twelfth, June B.E. 2519 (1976)
MRV Seni Pramot
Ministry of Interior
Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 93 Section 87 dated 29 June 1966.
Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allow to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.
Certified correct copy
(Signed) Yuthana Rittisit
Administrative Officer
Public Utility Section
Office of the Secretary
Copy taken and reviewed by : Wallada
(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)
Civil Engineer Grade 7
33 comments:
Hey stopvt 7, Look out your window towards the ocean,
DOES IT LOOK LIKE YOU WON?
Technically this might be a "procedure" ruling but the last 2 sentences leaves little room for doubt, "The Appeal of 8 Plaint Receivers which stated that the cancellation of Injunction order given by the First Administrative Court was done without enough ground is not reasonable to be taken to proceed. Therefore the court stands the same order to be in agreement with the order given by the First Administrative Court.", sounds like a nail being into the coffin.
Is the environmental lawyer, Khun Somchai, still on the case? What is he advising?
The latest word is that he will be the proud new owner of a condo in VT7.
But are you looking for expediency or Justice.
If there has been some obvious improprietry in court then there has to be a means to redress this.
Thats what the scales of justice are all about.
Fair hearing for all, is it not.
Sorry, but I think it's time to recognize the facts as they stand now for JCC. Estate agents throughout Pattaya agree that the sooner vt7 is completed and the green monstrosity removed, the better for JCC. Rentals and sales have plummeted. Some residents are having trouble meeting the increases in maintenance fees, etc. The fight was right but we lost. To deny that is to deny reality and continue to waste our limited resources. JCC owners still have a beautiful, classic building in an excellent location. There is much work to be done - so let vt7 choke on its victory. A day will come...
Yes the battle appears lost. I know JCC residents looking to rent their units and move elsewhere. If they want seaviews in the same location they should be advised not to buy in VT7 on the Pattaya side (north)because those views could possibly be blocked by another VT behemoth, VT5A. The JomTien side (south) looks to be Ok since you know what's there.
And soon VT7 might lose their view on the South. Some greedy crazy developpers will bye in the Plaza and construct a new beachfront tower on the big plot of land in front of Plaza. It is all posible thanks to the precedent of VT7.
Sadly you are correct.
Money talks
"Some greedy crazy developpers will bye in the Plaza and construct a new beachfront tower on the big plot of land in front of Plaza."
Highly unlikely. 1.) the Plaza owns the land 2.) it it not big enough for a high-rise. 3. there are still cheaper and vacant ocean front properties available. Example, the big plot just south of Pattaya Water park. Any condo developement that does not own the land directly in front of them is now at risk. Some developer could buy smaller plots to combine and make a big plot suitable for a high-rise. 50 years from now JomTien could look like Miami beach.
I don't understand how VT 7 would lose any seaview by a building built to the SIDE of it
It's done get over it
It is not all about views. VT2 and VT5 has many queers. Dong Tarn beach has too many queers. VT7 will be another queer paradise only adding more queers to the area and lowering prices even further.
"Some greedy crazy developpers will bye in the Plaza and construct a new beachfront tower on the big plot of land in front of Plaza."
The front of Plaza is more than 2 rai. Thats ok for high rise 30 storey!
If those greedy crazy developper bye into plaza and have at the EGM 50 % of the votes they can do , thanks to the new law and that is the cheapest way. And by the way T.I.T
"those greedy crazy developper bye into plaza"
and how do they do that? The Plaza is a popular building and when units do come on the market they usually sell.
Yes but who will now buy into the Plaza, and similar , with the risk that a high rise condo could be built in front of it?
Are you going to take the risk.
The great and the good know the vt7 episode was an unholy stitch up.
However history shows that in time the wrongs and wrongdoers get corrected.
"Yes but who will now buy into the Plaza, and similar , with the risk that a high rise condo could be built in front of it?
Are you going to take the risk."
I have friends who live in the Plaza. The point is there is no risk a highrise will be built in front of the Plaza. Unlike JCC the land is not vacant or for sale. The developers cannot get control of the land by buying it or buying into the Plaza. There is no mistake highrise condos will be built much closer to the sea in JomTien and Pattaya too but the Plaza owners have nothing to fear although other condo buildings could be at risk.
The way the courts operate in thailand I think anything can happen.
tea money.
I hear from some owner of plaza that someone allready intend to build a four storey building with tenniscourt on top.He said he want to make somethimg like Royal garden and a tower of 30 storey in the fornt to make some rental income so the owners do not have to pay maintenance .I think the owners must be greedy or a cheep charly .HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAVE SEEN THE RENDERINGS OF THIS PROJECT.
Yesterday I walk on dongtan and pas on Plaza and I see some governmental documents at the KFC building , is this the document to ask for building permit in the front of Plaza? Wat will the next be ? This is indeed Thailand.
If they really can build in front of Plaza because more than 100 M from MSL than this will be a overcrowded corner.Maybe it will be good for the economy.
Go to Google Earth. You will see that the KFC building is about 70 metres from MSL. Because of the law they can't even build a gas station there let alone a high-rise.
The Police at Dongtan tell me that the documents at the KFC building is from Cityhall ''It says that this building have no legal building permit and no one can enter or use this building''. Also the Kaffa next door have received documents from Cityhall that they can not use it for the public.
Go to Google Earth. You will see that the KFC building is about 70 metres from MSL. Because of the law they can't even build a gas station there let alone a high-rise.
Thats the whole point.
Regs 8 and 9 dont matter.
What the baht say at the time only matter
It's oh so queit, its oh so still, I wonder why , is there anybody hwo knows ?
The Rayong Court has ruled in favor of City and VT7, and so has the SC. The final ruling is just a formality.
"The Rayong Court has ruled in favor of City and VT7, and so has the SC. The final ruling is just a formality"
If that turns out to be the final outcome, I think the next course of action would be to sue the expert witness in the civil courts for damages.
I don't think so. You can't sue someone for telling the truth and supported by the engineering report. After stopVT7 loses again in court and files another appeal and then that is thrown out; then the former mayor and VT7 will counter sue and win!
"If that turns out to be the final outcome, I think the next course of action would be to sue the expert witness in the civil courts for damages."
I think that is going along the right lines.
After all the entire judgement has been based upon the opinion of the "expert witness".
The problem about the judgement is that the court has never allowed proper challenge to this opinion.
So yes, put him on the stand in the civil courts where he can be properly challenged and be made to provide some precedence for his "opinion".
So yes, put him on the stand in the civil courts where he can be properly challenged and be made to provide some precedence for his "opinion".
Is the expert witness not .....?
was that not the engineer from city hall who whas shot in Huayay a few months ago? or is this a rumour.
At 04.30, on September 21st, 2008, Second Lieutenant police officer Arnon In-phong, Sattahip, was notified that a man was shot dead. The incident took place in front of a house No. 45/7-45/8, Soi Huey-yai, Na-jomtien, Sattahip, Chonburi. Pol.Lt.Col. Sutham Chaosrithong and investigation team with Rojanathamasatien rescue rushed to the scene.
In front of a bungalow house, official found a bronze Toyota Vios, licensed No. 6484, Chonburi, had been left the engine running, parking outside the house, and a deceased body of Mr. Sanit Nilkum (45), Pattaya Civil Engineer level 7, lying in a pool of blood on the ground in front of iron sliding gate to his house.
From this blog:
Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified as the Witness, that the area controlling the construction as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521 is 100 meter distance from MSL towards the sea. While measuring the Witness did not measure from the MSL point to the dispute building, but he measured from the MSL point until he reached 100 meter from the aforesaid point, and if measurement continued to reach the dispute building, the building would be about 102 or 103 meter far from MSL depending on which side to the building."
Comparing names to the murdered lawyer in the news article this in not the same person. So this was just a rumour.
Yes it loks to be a different guy.
However, reading the article about the guy the suggestion of corruption is consistent as here.
It possibly could have been Veera
had he not decided to take the cash and go along with VT and make up a pile of garbage about the 100m out to sea and back method.
Yep, although probably well paid off,veera must be concerned as this is close to home.
Now is the time to get him in the civil courts, challenge him, and sue him.
Post a Comment