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,”
No comments:
Post a Comment