We received the end of December a Rayon court order given us until 2 January 2009 to offer new evidence or our case will be close and a final order would be issued. We offered new evidence which contradicted the expert witness and court revokes the dateline given. Our case goes on! See translation of Rayong Court Order below.
Writ of Court Order ( Dtor. 10.5 )
GARUDA EMBLEM
Black Case No. 54/2007
Red Case No: ../ 25
In the King Sign Manual
The Administrative Court of Rayong Province
8 January 2009
Mr. Tenbult Alewis Maria Plaintiff # 1 and 10 Associates Plaintffs
Between
Pattaya City Hall Official #1 and 2 Associates Defendants
Meaning: Miss Jirisumai Na. Nhongkai, The appointed person of 1st – 5th
and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs
As requested by 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs to file and Additional and
Revisal Plaint and also adding more Explanation issued on 30 December 2008, the court hereby gives and order to accept the adding and revising in the plaint and because of more matters of fact to be found in the points shown in the Additional and Revisal Plaint however, the court hereby revokes the dateline given for Facts Finding as originally was 2 January 2009 and when the court already revoked the dateline of Facts Finding date, therefore the Plaint of Extensional Request issued on 30 December 2008 of 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs is not in needed to be considered whatsoever.
Therefore, this is for your information.
Judge of Administrative Court: - Signed -
( Mr. Prasitsak Meelahp )
Rayong Administrative Court
(in the area of Rayong Official Center)
No. 777 Sukhumvit Road Tambol Nuenphra
Ampur Muang Rayong Province 21150
Anonymous asked “what is the new evidence Mr. Stopvt7?” Well, Issue 9 had been promulgated by expanding the Area cover in Issue 8. The expert witness reduced the area cover by the regulation. So this expert witness was wrong in his testimony. See quotes from court filing below:
“8 Plaintiffs would like to add more explanation
Issue 8 the first law promulgating to limit Construction Control Lines over the regions
Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) had been promulgated for the reason of “According to the adjustment of the Construction Control Line over the regions of Banglamung, ……….. by expanding it as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE. 2521. It’s appropriate to revise the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 governing the prohibition for construction certain types of buildings in the Construction Control Line as stipulated in the aforementioned Royal Decree, therefore to be more appropriate and suitable, this Ministerial Regulations is needed to be promulgated”.
The reason for promulgating this Royal Decree, which promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, …………. is “According to the rapid growth of construction in the regions of Banglamung,………………. and it appears that some constructions did not follow the stipulation of the law governing Construction Control, because the matter that the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung……………………….does not cover the aforementioned construction areas, therefore it is appropriate to revise the aforementioned Royal Decree by expanding the area, especially the areas along the sea sides, to allow local officials to enforce the law in those areas, therefore, this Ministerial Regulations needed to be promulgated”.
Therefore, the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 stipulates the intention or purpose of fixing 100 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map, along the Sea side inward onto the land, preventing from construction of the types as list in Clause 3. (1) – (8) as shown in the Attached Remark of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) which stated that…… because…... the aforementioned areas are tourist attractions, some types of construction which may cause interference or disturbance and waste products and ruin the environment should be prohibited to be constructed.
After that, the Construction Control Line of the regions of Banglamung, …………………..had been revised by expanding for greater area, as shown in the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE. 2521. It’s appropriate to revise the …………………………………………………
Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) to be more appropriate and suitable by promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521), as shown in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 as above, so the provisions in these 2 Ministerial Regulations are considered to be in agreement with and related to each other or have the connected procedures to each other, that is the reason of mentioning or claiming such Regulations………..
The intention or purpose of for promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) is to expand the power of control to all constructions in the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. which are tourist attractions of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, by fixing the distance of 200 meters, measuring from the Construct Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree BE. 2521, along the sea sides, to be the prohibited area for construction types by the list in Clause 3. (1) – (8). To interpret the statement to be accordance with the intention and purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519), therefore the expansion of Construction Control Line as listed in Clause 3. (1) – (8) from the former distance of 100 meters to 200 meters must be expanding the distance of the sea side inward onto the land to prevent from prohibited constructions as listed in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and 9 which stipulated for more appropriate and in accord.
By Clause 3.(1)-(8) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521), prohibits
the 8 types of construction as same as the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519) by having the reason for promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) is “ According to the Construction Control Line in the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts which had been revised by expanding out of the former distance to be wider than before…..”
The word “ wide ” listed in the Royal Thai Encyclopedia Dictionary BE. 2542 expressed the meaning of the word “ wide” which means spread out more, big such as having a big space
The word “ out ” means moving outward, making it happened such as the car is moving out .., issued the law out….
The word “ of ” means moving out of the place, opposite of “ in”.
The 8 Plaintiffs would like to express to the court that the words “ wide” and “out” and “of” which were listed in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) are the words for setting the true meanings of such words or phrases by giving a meaning to be an expansion of the distance to make the space wider in order to expand the Construction Control Line to be wider, which when it is used to interpret the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE 2521) will get the meaning of expanding the Construction Control Area as stated in Clause 3. (1) – (8) from before was 100 meters to 200 meters, therefore the expansion must be done at the Sea sides inward onto the land. Details shown in the Attached document NO: 2: a copy of the meaning sheet from the Royal Thai Encyclopedia Dictionary BE. 2542.
And considering the types of building which are under control as stated in Clause 3 (1) – (8) of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and 9 will see that those buildings, by conditions and operation purposes, are all needed to be constructed on land. They definitely can not be constructed in the sea. So it can not be interpreted the phrase “expanding out of the former distance to be wider than before” as shown in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) that it is to expand the Construction Control Line outward into the sea because it will make the expansion of the Construction Control Line can not be enforced in reality by the intention and purpose of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. Therefore the interpretation must be done in the way that, by Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which stipulated to fix the area within 200 meters, is the way to expand the Construction Control Line as shown in Clause 3. (1) – (8) from the sea sides inward onto the land to be wider for 100m meters, to be 200 meters. As for the 100 meters which expands the Construction Control Line outward into the sea as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree BE. 2521 however has not been stipulated in any Ministerial Regulations in order to take control all constructions outward in the sea especially whatsoever, as for the future, the Minister of Ministry of the Interior will use authorization to issue a Ministerial Regulations to fix the Construction Control Area for certain type of construction in the area within 100 meters outward into the sea.
2.2 Apart from that, the interpretation of the Construction Control Line stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which was used by the court for fact hearing, as shown in the report of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, including witness’s testimony, stated that the disputed building is located over 100 meters from the MSL which was the reason for the court to give the order of lifting the Injunction, means the order that given to 2nd Plaint Receiver to temporally seize the construction on the part of building which is over 14 meters high from road surfaces until the judgment or another order is made. The Construction Control Line as stipulated by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which is measured inward onto the land is 11 meters narrower than the Construction Control Line as stipulated by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519). It gives the result to allow the building taller than road surfaces more than 14 meters to be able to be constructed closer to the sea. It is opposite to the intention of the law, as shown in the following details;
The 8 Plaintiffs would like to express to the court that the Starting point for measurement as stipulated by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 “ Stipulated to fix the area within 100 meters by measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map……………..along the sea sides to be the prohibited land for the following types of constructions…… (8) Building taller than 14 meters from road surfaces”
And by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 which stipulated that “ Stipulated to fix the area within 200 meters by measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Control Acts BE. 2479, over the regions of Banglamung, …………….along the sea sides to be the prohibited land for the following types of constructions…… (8) Building taller than 14 meters from road surfaces”
The starting point for measurement as stipulated in both aforementioned Ministerial Regulations are not the same point. Mr. Supol Pongtaipat, Engineer, on duty on behalf of the Rector of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning had submitted a letter of explanation to the Rayong Administrative Court stated that “ 2. The distance of 100 meters as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519 ) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479, and the distance of 200 maters as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521 ) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 are not the same line because the Coast Line as listed by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519) is not fixed to be measured at the MSL but by the Issue 9(BE. 2521) is listed to be measure at the MSL only” Details as shown in the Attach document No: 3 – the letter from the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, Most Urgent No: MOr. Tor. 0710 / 4245, Date: 19 June 2550, Subject: Order for an explanation which was submitted to court by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning. Therefore, from the explanation of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as above, it shows that what is listed in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519) is the measurement from the Coast line which means the High Tide, but in Issue 9(BE. 2521) is listed to measure from the MSL. It means the stating point for measurement listed in both Ministerial Regulations are not the same line……………………………..……………………………………….
And on the Enquiry, dated: 15 January 2008, Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified, that … “if the measurement is made from the Construction Control Line as referred to The Royal Decree B.E. 2521, it will be the distance of the building as same as measuring for 100 meters from the MSL inward onto the land to reach the shore………………………………………
From the facts explained to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province as above, if the interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is made as written in the report of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning and the Testimony of the witness however, the measurement from the Coast Line at the MSL ( +0.00 ) on the NORTH and SOUTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark of the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver would be 50.15 and 49.60 meters respectively. If the comparison is made to the Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) which stated to measure from the Coast line to the Bench mark on the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver, it would be 39 meters. It shows the difference of distance approximately 11 meters from the Coast line at the MSL and the Coast line (High Tide ).
The interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) as above shows that the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3.(8) which prohibits the building taller than 14 meters from road surfaces to be constructed, is 11 meters narrower than the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3.(8) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) which giving the result to allow all buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces to be constructed closer to the for 11 meters which is not in agreement with the intention and purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which stipulated to expand to be wider as above and intends to expand the Construction Control Line along the sea side to be wider. If the interpretation is made to expand the Construction Control Line as stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) is the expansion of the distance of 200 meters along the Sea side inward onto the land, then it will be in accordance with the intention and purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) as kindly expressed to the Court as above…………………………………………………
Therefore, as shown in the stage of Enquiry, on 15 January 2551, Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, testified to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province that “ the Disputed building is 103 and 102 meters away from the land from the MSL, inward onto the land”, if this phrase is interpreted that the starting point of the Construction Control Line is the distance of 200 meters from MSL inward onto the land, then it will give the result that the Disputed building is located within 200 meters, which is the Construction Control Area, stipulated in Clause 3.(8) of the Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), which prohibits buildings taller than 14 meters to be constructed, as the aforesaid reasons explained to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.
2.3 The 8 Plaintiffs would like to add on explanation to the court that, by Article 79 of the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522, stipulated that “All Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2579, or the Construction Control Acts controlling construction in the Area which was burnt B.E. 2476, can be enforced as long as they are not contrary to this Royal Decree”. The 9 Plaintiffs see that, not only all Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which promulgated to be in accordance with both aforementioned Construction Control Acts will be able to enforce as long as they are not contrary to provision of the Construction Control Acts Be. 2522, but however the interpretation to enforce the Ministerial Regulations, Local Provisions or aforementioned Order is needed to be interpreted to be in accordance with the intention and purpose of enforcing the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522 and involved laws also, so that the procedure will be correct by the purpose of the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522. In Article 5 of this Act, it grants priority authorization to the Minister of the Ministry of the Interior in issuing Ministerial Regulations for different purposes as stipulated in Article 8 “ for the benefit of security, safety, Fire Protection / Public Health / Environmental Quality Preserve / City Planning / Architectural and Traffic Servicing including other fields which are involved with the procedures to be in accordance with this Act, stipulated for the Minister with Advise from the Construction Control Committee, to be in power in issuing the Regulations to stipulate; ...............................................................
It shows that the intention of The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522 and the involved Regulations which have been using to control all areas by the Coast line in the kingdom is to preserve the environment and the ecological system of Coast line by measuring from the Coast line at the High Tide caused by nature inward onto the land for 200 meters, to be the prohibited area for the types of constructions which may cause the impact, including the buildings taller than 12 meters as mentioned. So the interpretation which said that the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulates to fix 200 meters from “the Construction Control Line”, which is the distance of a 100 meters away outward into the sea from the Coast line at the MSL, to be the prohibited area for the building taller than 14 meters is also contrary to the purpose of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522.
Depending on the grounds expressed to court by the 8 Plaintiffs as above, may the court kindly give an order to accept the Additional and Revisal Plaint with more Explanation submitted be the 8 Plaintiffs,”
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
An Import Win at the Rayong Court
We received the end of December a Rayon court order given us until 2 January 2009 to offer new evidence or our case will be close and a final order would be issued. We offered new evidence which contradicted the expert witness and court revokes the dateline given. Our case goes on! See translation of Rayong Court Order below.
Writ of Court Order ( Dtor. 10.5 )
GARUDA EMBLEM
Black Case No. 54/2007
Red Case No: ../ 25
In the King Sign Manual
The Administrative Court of Rayong Province
Mr. Tenbult Alewis Maria Plaintiff # 1 and 10 Associates Plaintffs
Between
Meaning: Miss Jirisumai Na. Nhongkai, The appointed person of 1st – 5th
and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs
As requested by 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs to file and Additional and
Revisal Plaint and also adding more Explanation issued on 30 December 2008, the court hereby gives and order to accept the adding and revising in the plaint and because of more matters of fact to be found in the points shown in the Additional and Revisal Plaint however, the court hereby revokes the dateline given for Facts Finding as originally was 2 January 2009 and when the court already revoked the dateline of Facts Finding date, therefore the Plaint of Extensional Request issued on 30 December 2008 of 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs is not in needed to be considered whatsoever.
Therefore, this is for your information.
Judge of Administrative Court: - Signed -
( Mr. Prasitsak Meelahp )
Rayong Administrative Court
(in the area of
Anonymous asked “what is the new evidence Mr. Stopvt7?” Well, Issue 9 had been promulgated by expanding the Area cover in Issue 8. The expert witness reduced the area cover by the regulation. So this expert witness was wrong in his testimony. See quotes from court filing below:
“8 Plaintiffs would like to add more explanation
Issue 8 the first law promulgating to limit Construction Control Lines over the regions
Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) had been promulgated for the reason of “According to the adjustment of the Construction Control Line over the regions of Banglamung, ……….. by expanding it as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and
The reason for promulgating this Royal Decree, which promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nongprue and Na klua Sub-districts, Chonburi Province BE. 2521 is “According to the rapid growth of construction in the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nongprue and Na klua Sub-districts, Chonburi Province and it appears that some constructions did not follow the stipulation of the law governing Construction Control, because the matter that the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung……………………….does not cover the aforementioned construction areas, therefore it is appropriate to revise the aforementioned Royal Decree by expanding the area, especially the areas along the sea sides, to allow local officials to enforce the law in those areas, therefore, this Ministerial Regulations needed to be promulgated”.
Therefore, the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 stipulates the intention or purpose of fixing
After that, the Construction Control Line of the regions of Banglamung, …………………..had been revised by expanding for greater area, as shown in the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and
Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) to be more appropriate and suitable by promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521), as shown in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 as above, so the provisions in these 2 Ministerial Regulations are considered to be in agreement with and related to each other or have the connected procedures to each other, that is the reason of mentioning or claiming such Regulations………..
The intention or purpose of for promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) is to expand the power of control to all constructions in the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and
By Clause 3.(1)-(8) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521), prohibits
the 8 types of construction as same as the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519) by having the reason for promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) is “ According to the Construction Control Line in the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts which had been revised by expanding out of the former distance to be wider than before…..”
The word “ wide ” listed in the Royal Thai Encyclopedia Dictionary BE. 2542 expressed the meaning of the word “ wide” which means spread out more, big such as having a big space
The word “ out ” means moving outward, making it happened such as the car is moving out .., issued the law out….
The word “ of ” means moving out of the place, opposite of “ in”.
The 8 Plaintiffs would like to express to the court that the words “ wide” and “out” and “of” which were listed in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) are the words for setting the true meanings of such words or phrases by giving a meaning to be an expansion of the distance to make the space wider in order to expand the Construction Control Line to be wider, which when it is used to interpret the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE 2521) will get the meaning of expanding the Construction Control Area as stated in Clause 3. (1) – (8) from before was
And considering the types of building which are under control as stated in Clause 3 (1) – (8) of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and 9 will see that those buildings, by conditions and operation purposes, are all needed to be constructed on land. They definitely can not be constructed in the sea. So it can not be interpreted the phrase “expanding out of the former distance to be wider than before” as shown in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) that it is to expand the Construction Control Line outward into the sea because it will make the expansion of the Construction Control Line can not be enforced in reality by the intention and purpose of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. Therefore the interpretation must be done in the way that, by Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which stipulated to fix the area within
2.2 Apart from that, the interpretation of the Construction Control Line stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which was used by the court for fact hearing, as shown in the report of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, including witness’s testimony, stated that the disputed building is located over
The 8 Plaintiffs would like to express to the court that the Starting point for measurement as stipulated by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 “ Stipulated to fix the area within
And by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 which stipulated that “ Stipulated to fix the area within
The starting point for measurement as stipulated in both aforementioned Ministerial Regulations are not the same point. Mr. Supol Pongtaipat, Engineer, on duty on behalf of the Rector of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning had submitted a letter of explanation to the Rayong Administrative Court stated that “ 2. The distance of
And on the Enquiry, dated: 15 January 2008, Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified, that … “if the measurement is made from the Construction Control Line as referred to The Royal Decree B.E. 2521, it will be the distance of the building as same as measuring for
From the facts explained to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province as above, if the interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is made as written in the report of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning and the Testimony of the witness however, the measurement from the Coast Line at the MSL ( +0.00 ) on the NORTH and SOUTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark of the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver would be 50.15 and
The interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) as above shows that the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3.(8) which prohibits the building taller than
Therefore, as shown in the stage of Enquiry, on 15 January 2551, Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, testified to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province that “ the Disputed building is 103 and
2.3 The 8 Plaintiffs would like to add on explanation to the court that, by Article 79 of the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522, stipulated that “All Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2579, or the Construction Control Acts controlling construction in the Area which was burnt B.E. 2476, can be enforced as long as they are not contrary to this Royal Decree”. The 9 Plaintiffs see that, not only all Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which promulgated to be in accordance with both aforementioned Construction Control Acts will be able to enforce as long as they are not contrary to provision of the Construction Control Acts Be. 2522, but however the interpretation to enforce the Ministerial Regulations, Local Provisions or aforementioned Order is needed to be interpreted to be in accordance with the intention and purpose of enforcing the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522 and involved laws also, so that the procedure will be correct by the purpose of the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522. In Article 5 of this Act, it grants priority authorization to the Minister of the Ministry of the Interior in issuing Ministerial Regulations for different purposes as stipulated in Article 8 “ for the benefit of security, safety, Fire Protection / Public Health / Environmental Quality Preserve / City Planning / Architectural and Traffic Servicing including other fields which are involved with the procedures to be in accordance with this Act, stipulated for the Minister with Advise from the Construction Control Committee, to be in power in issuing the Regulations to stipulate; ...............................................................
It shows that the intention of The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522 and the involved Regulations which have been using to control all areas by the Coast line in the kingdom is to preserve the environment and the ecological system of Coast line by measuring from the Coast line at the High Tide caused by nature inward onto the land for
Depending on the grounds expressed to court by the 8 Plaintiffs as above, may the court kindly give an order to accept the Additional and Revisal Plaint with more Explanation submitted be the 8 Plaintiffs,”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)