Rayong Admin Court hearing was held on March 24, 2009

We will post witness testimony after the translation. We where encouraged by the evidence we were able to present to the court for their files We have no elution about the outcome. We expect a final Rayong court decision within 10 days.
What ever the decision is every one understands their will be a appeal. Now we have strong evidence in the court records for our appeal to The Supreme Admin Court.
We thank all our supports!
Stopvt7 Group


STATEMENT
To Rayong Provincial Administrative Court

Information of the Statement Maker

Name: Mr. Richard Haines, on behalf of the current 8 Plaintiffs
Age: -- Years
Occupation:
Address: Jomthien Complex Condotel 414 Moo 12, Thappraya Road, Nongprue
Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province



Statement Chapter 1
I have been one of the 10 Plaintiffs since the beginning. According to a
problem Jomthien Complex Condotel had to face at the beginning time when the prosecution of the Black Case No: 54 / 2550 had started in B.E. 2550 which was the problem with Lack of Juristic Person Committee who would act on behalf of all co-owners who were damaged from the change on the empty land in front of JCC at that time. A group of Co-owners who were in ready positions therefore co-operated in the prosecution of this aforementioned case, actually it was in the name of all co-owners. As for the change on the empty land in front of JCC at that time was a Large and tall building which has been View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium ( Project 7 ) which was permitted to start its construction on the aforementioned land. The damages received from construction of the aforementioned building have not been just what would be clarified in the following clarifications such as;
1. Blocking and changing Wind directions, Sunlight and See view
Sceneries OR
2. Causing damages to JCC Building. It crated crack lines and falling
Off of JCC building parts caused by Vibration impact from the construction and JCC had to pay a lot of money in maintaining its building ( as shown in the Attachment No: 1- A copy of Request for the claimed monies No. Jor.Kor 115 /08 / 50 Dated 16 August 2550 and some pictures shown Damaged areas of JCC which had been proved caused by the construction of VTL7 )


/ Page 2 /
3. Including Extreme Investment Devaluation. As JCC is not able to
remain its condition of a condominium right by the sea as guaranteed from beginning. Because in the beginning time of JCC, when the Promotional campaigns had been started by the Developer and Purchasing had been started by co-owners including when time has passed and there have been so many purchasing changes up to the present time, all those had been confirmed by the Promotional campaigns that it would never
( 1 )
be any tall building that would be built and block in front of JCC building to cause Extreme Investment Devaluation and Damages as stated above. The Developer even added on its Promotional Campaigns that it would not be any kinds of place to be in between while walking down to the beach (as shown in the Attachment No: 2- A copy of Brochure booklet which had been a part of Promotional Campaigns of JCC in the beginning , Page 3)

The 10 Plaintiffs and all Co-owners were not aware of all aforementioned damages when purchasing condominium units and / or when the investment in JCC were made because all had never expected that those damages could ever happened when there had been Promotional Campaigns to guarantee by the Developer both verbally and Document materials producing including all types of Medias and Presses. In Addition, the most important guarantee of safety from all aforementioned damages which had been held by the 10 Plaintiffs’ consideration was the law which have been promulgated to protect Coast lines in the Areas of Jomtien and Pattaya and some areas near by from Environmental Impact Intruding by Large buildings and all prohibited types of constructions as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479. This Regulations was promulgated on 23 November B.E. 2521 (as shown in the Attachment No: 3- A copy of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) with its Annexed Map shows Clause 3 of the Regulations) which was promulgated before construction of JCC and was respected all around about the holiness and effectiveness of this Regulations and also every law in Thailand.
Because the 10 Plaintiffs and all co-owners have held security which made believe that all would be protected by this Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), therefore the damages received by the aforementioned causes have not been only what said as above only.

4. But the most serious Damage received was because of the law,
means the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which stipulated to “ fix the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521, Along the Sea Sides to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.” has failed to be able to Enforced Effectively with its Holiness in order to meet the Intention of issuing this…….

/ Page 3 /
Regulation. By the result of measurement to find the CCL ( Construction Control Line) from Coast line at MSL( Mean Sea Level) by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning however, it gave a result of making 2nd Plaint Receiver received a Construction License to construct its building by being in contrary with the Intention of Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) as mentioned. The Intention is to expand the Construction Control Line along the Sea Sides which is the Coast line at MSL for
( 2 )
100 meters to support the Rapid Growth of Tourist Industry and Investment in the Areas of Pattaya, Banglamung District and some areas near by. It is the expansion to support all changes from recent time up to future time which can change into many directions, and in some areas along Coast lines of Banglamung District however, they have been intruded by Fresh Markets and / or Residences including Business Sections before such as some areas in Nakluea Sub-district and the Walking street, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province which intruded into the Construction Control Area until they were out of the zone of the Construction Control Area enforced by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which intends to fix the area within the distance of 100 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, Along the Sea Sides Inward Onto the Land to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.” which it had created holes in Practice and it has been difficult to enforce the Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) effectively to meet its holiness and effectiveness. (as shown in the Attachment No: 4- A copy of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) with its Annexed Map shows Clause 3 of the Regulations / and No: 5- A copy of Satellite pictures over some areas along the sea side in Nakluea Sub-district ) and which Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) stipulated to measure at the Coast line at High Tide.

After issuing the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) however, it
appeared to be some areas which were out of the Control zone as mentioned until it has been impossible to protect Environment around those mentioned areas, therefore by 2 (Two ) years later, the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) has been issued and promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which stipulated “ to fix the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, Along the Sea Sides Inward Onto the Land to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.” to be able to take control on wider areas along the Coast Lines and by adding one more Tumbol(Sub-district) which is Nongplalai Sub-district and ….

/ Page 4 /
also stipulated to expand the area within the Construction Control Line to be wider from 100 meters to be 200 meters from Coast Lines by changing the Measurement point from Natural High Tide as stipulated in Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) to the point of MSL 0.00 meter as stipulated in Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) to meet the Intention of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) which stipulated to add on and revise weak law points of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) which has failed to cover and take control over some areas in Nakluea Sub-district and the Walking street, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province which have been intruded by Fresh Markets and / or Residences including Business Sections into the Construction Control Area.
( 3 )
The current 8 Plaintiffs would like to ask for Your Honor’s kind permission to bring one statement shown in the Note of the Meeting to Draft the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 in B.E. 2008 promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 up to be a Reference which stated that “ In Clause 4 “ Stipulated to fix the distance of 50 meters from the road line along the Beach and within 50 meters from the road line along the Beach is the Prohibited areas for the following constructions”

( 8 ) Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces

Later on, it was a meeting to revise the statement to be “Stipulated to fix the distance of 100 meters measuring from the Construction Control line as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree along the Sea side Inward Onto the Land to be the Prohibited areas for the following constructions”

( 8 ) Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces

Then later on, it was another revising by removing the Phrase stated
“Inward Onto the Land” out because the aforementioned statement is clearly understood, therefore the statement is left as “Stipulated to fix the distance of 100 meters measuring from the Construction Control line as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree along the Sea side to be the Prohibited areas for the following constructions ”.
During the meeting, the Chairman questioned the Requester who requested this Regulations to be drafted that wouldn’t it be unfair to some local residents who have a small piece of land along the sea shore as the land is not allowed to be fully operated for its benefit? The Requester answered “ Minority of people must make sacrifices for Majority”

The Meeting approved the aforementioned Draft of Regulations by seeing clearly of the needs of Environmental Protection over the Coast lines by taking control of all types of construction which may impact the seas and shores

/ Page 5 /
It is clearly shown that the Interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations
Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) and the Attached Map by the Department of Civil engineer and City Planning by interpreting symbols on the map which were “ Two Arrows pointing to each other” shown on the Map of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) at Mark A and B that they define the Measurement from the Construction Control Line at MSL at 0.00 meter Outward into the sea for 100 meters to be the Construction Control Line. Then measuring from the said point Inward Onto the Land to the building for another 100 meters and it is the distance of 200 meters from the Construction Control Line. (as shown in the Attachment No: 6 - A copy of the MOST URGENT Letter No: Mor.Tor. 0710 / 9634 Dated on 18 December 2550, Title: Procedure by Court Order, Page 4, 5th Line until the end) which stated that “ Therefore The Coast line at MSL must be started measuring at the MSL at value 0.00 meter. When measuring from

( 4 )
the aforesaid point Outward into the sea for 100 meters, it will be the Construction Control Line by the Annexed Map of Royal Decree promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521, and when measuring from the said point Inward Onto the Land to the building for another 100 meters, it will be the distance of 200 meters from the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) which was amended by Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 which prohibited from Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.” is the interpretation that is not in agreement with the phrase “ Inward Onto the Land” and “ the aforementioned statement is clearly understood ” as shown in the Note of the Meeting to Draft the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 in B.E. 2008 promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which was brought up to be a Reference (including the Attachments as shown in No: 7 – A copy of the Chart shown Comparison between Issue 8 and 9 / No: 8 – A copy of the Chart shown Comparison of the Construction Control Line at the Coast line on both Maps / and No: 9 – A copy of the Chart shown the Facts as shown on the Annexed Map of Issue 9 ).

When Comparing with the Annexed Map of Ministerial Regulations Issue 35 promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522, there are 2 arrows pointing to each other which only define the Definitions of the lines pointed by arrows (as shown in the Attachment No: 10 – A copy of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 35 B.E. 2535 promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522 and the Annexed Map).

As shown in the Statement of Opinions from an Expert which would like to ask for Your Honor’s kind permission to bring up to be another evidence of References, it stated the Principles In Reading the symbol “Arrow ” which whether there is only 1 arrow or are 2 arrows pointing to each other whatsoever, they all being put to tell definitions of what arrows pointing to only.

/ Page 6 /
If any arrow is put to mark Exercise procedures in measurement to find distance or other exercises which are over the general duty of arrow however. There will be a clear and complete Definition or Specification attached with that map to prevent wrong interpretation (as shown in the Attachment No: 11 – A copy of an Opinions by Dr. Anatthachai Rattagul dated on 21 March 2552). When there is no definition stated the other purposes of arrows, then it can not be interpreted to be another meanings but the meaning of what arrows point to. The Interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) and its Annexed Map by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as shown in the aforementioned Report however, apart from being in contrary with the direction of meaning of the phrase “ Outward into the sea ” and “the aforementioned statement is clearly understood ” as shown in the Note of the Meeting to Draft the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 in B.E. 2008…..
( 5 )
promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 as mentioned already, it is also seriously wrong which is in opposite to the Intention of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) as well.

From the Result of an actual measurement made by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, it made the Construction Control Line 11 meters narrower from the result referred to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE. 2499 Along the Sea side Onward Into the land to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces” which is in contrary with the intention of amending and adding some points which was the reason of issuing the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) (as shown in the Attachment No: 12 – A copy of the Appear against the Order of Lifting the Injunction or procedure to minimize injured consequences before judgment Dated on 15 February 2551, Page 17, Clause 3, 3rd line from the bottom ). The Construction Control Line which was expanded to support the rapid growth along Coast Line Areas as mentioned however, will not be able to enforce effectively if the result of measurement made by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning made the Construction Control Line 11 meters narrower as mentioned and it brings all types of prohibited constructions including Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces to be built closer to the sea more than before.


The 10 Plaintiffs and all Co-owners understood from the beginning when
the purchasing of condominium units in JCC were done until nowadays that all had been protected by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) which was stipulated to protect Coast Lines in Pattaya, Banglamung District and some areas near by from being intruded by all types of prohibited constructions including Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces for the benefit of nation in general. Therefore all co-owners have had security to invest in JCC for both residential and business purposes, because all had truly believed in the effectiveness and holiness of Thai Laws as they have been watched by another nations.

/ Page 7 /
Therefore, the summary which shown in “ Summary of Facts by Judicial of the Case, Dated on 25 February 2552” as stated that “ Because the 10 Plaintiffs chose to buy condominium units in Jomthien Complex Condotel which does not have the front of building close to the sea but close to Thappraya road instead however, they should have expected a large building to be built which can block wind directions, sunlight and sceneries of sea view later ”….. is the Summary that is not true to what has been happened and has no ground on stating that whatsoever. (as shown in the Attachment No: 13 – A copy of Summary of Facts by Judicial of the Case, Dated on 25 February 2552, Page 12, 2nd Paragraph )
( 6 )

In Addition, the 10 Plaintiffs had gathered together to submit a prosecution to the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court because of the problem with Lack of Juristic Person Committee who would act on behalf of all co-owners as mentioned. The Prosecution which has been proceeded from the beginning by the 10 Plaintiffs and the current 8 Plaintiffs actually means the prosecution on behalf of all damaged co-owners in JCC and is understood to be the Requirement for Justice which will be fairly given by the Administrative Court for the benefit of people of this country also.


Statement Chapter 2

I hereby, would like to ask for your honor’s kind permission to stated an additional statement about the damage which 10 Plaintiffs have received from the conduct of Mr. Amnat Thiangtham, the Appointed person who was assigned to submit a prosecution of the Black Case No: 54 / 2550 to the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court that, …..the 10 Plaintiffs then or the current 8 Plaintiffs had had a confirmation from Mr. Amnat Thiangtham and Mr. Markus Klemm, who had been professional attorneys at Asia Law Works Office, and they confirmed that what 1st Plaintiffs had done was in Violation to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) by issuing the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 Dated on 28 November 2549 to permit 2nd Plaint Receiver which was View Thalay Jomtien Condominium ( 1999 ) Co., Ltd. to construct its Large and tall building with 27 floors on the empty land in front of JCC as mentioned and what the 10 Plaintiffs had understood was absolutely correct. The 10 Plaintiffs on behalf of all co-owners therefore decided to appoint Mr. Amnat Thiangtham to be the Appointed person to submit a Prosecution for the purpose of stopping the illegal construction as above (as shown in the Attachment No: 14 – A copy of Power of Attorney and Official Card of Mr. Amnat Thiangtham )


/ Page 8 /
Then on 16 January 2551, the 10 Plaintiffs received an documentary evidence which was “the Order concerning the Request for Lifting Injunction or the procedure to minimize injured consequences before judgment” issued by the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court with its information which can be used to be a proof to show the Miss-representation by Mr. Amnat Thiangtham which miss-represented from the true intention of prosecution of the 10 Plaintiffs which created severe damages until it has been impossible to accept by the 10 Plaintiffs. Mr. Amnat Thiangtham in capacity of the Appointed Person had submitted the Plaint dated: 15 January 2008 by the involved statement is shown in “the Order concerning the Request for Lifting Injunction or procedure to minimize injured consequences before judgment” issued by the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court, Form: Dtor. 20, Dated on 16 January 2551, stated that “ The 10 Plaintiffs submitted a Plaint dated on 15 January 2551 to explain Law Points and Facts summarized that, the 10 Plaintiffs accept that the measurement at the MSL of the Department of Civil
( 7 )
Engineer and City Planning was correct by theory but considered that the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree is at the distance of 100 meters from the former Coast Line Outward into the sea NOT the MSL” (as shown in the Attachment No: 15 – A copy of the Order concerning the Request for Lifting Injunction or procedure to minimize injured consequences before judgment, issued by the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court, Form: Dtor.20, Dated on 16 January 2551, Page 4, 4th Paragraph ) which was in contrary with the understanding of 10 Plaintiffs. Because the 10 Plaintiffs have understood that The Construction Control Line is the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Coast Line at MSL shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, Along the Sea Sides, is the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.” NOT “the former Coast Line Outward into the sea” as stated in the aforementioned Plaint submitted by Mr. Amnat Thiangtham at all.

In Addition, to ask for Your Honor’s kind permission to express for the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court to see clearly how seriously the damage has done to the 10 Plaintiffs by Miss-representation of Mr. Amnat Thiangtham. The Current 8 Plaintiffs would like to state information in the Draft of the aforementioned Plaint which was sent to the 10 Plaintiffs for inspection and approval before submitting to the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court on 15 January 2551 as mentioned. This document was sent by email by the representative of Mr. Amnat Thiangtham, sent to the Email address of Mr. Richard Haines (myself), made in English language, sent for an approval on 15 January 2551 at 08.35 am. The way the document was sent to the 10 Plaintiffs for an approval in rush hours before submitting the Plaint to the court just less than two hours like that, the 10 Plaintiffs have considered it to be the Careless conduct and it was very risky for mistakes. However, the essences shown in the aforementioned Draft of Plaint was in agreement with the understanding of 10 Plaintiffs and it satisfied the 10 Plaintiffs and the 10 Plaintiffs believed that Mr. Amnat Thiangtham would submit the Original Plaint of the aforementioned Draft to the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court later (as shown in the Attachment No: 16 – A Copy of Draft of the Plaint sent by email with its cover sheet in English – 4 pages with a Thai translation – 4 pages. The essence is in Page 2, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Phrases ) (Oringal E-mail attachment is post below.)

/ Page 9 /
However, when it was the time of submitting the Plaint to the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court by Mr. Amnat Thiangtham, it appeared that Mr. Amnat Thiangtham had submitted the different Plaint with the essence that was in contrary to points of view of 10 Plaintiffs to the court which the 10 Plaintiffs were not aware of the Appointed person’s miss-representation until the following day and time. The aforementioned miss-representation had created serious injuries to the 10 Plaintiffs until it was almost impossible to be remedied. The only solution that the 10 Plaintiffs could
( 8 )

have come up with was only the Dismissal of Mr. Amnat Thiangtham from being the Appointed person of the 10 Plaintiffs on the date of acknowledgement of the aforementioned misconduct.

The 10 Plaintiffs could not accept Mr. Amnat Thiangtham’s miss-Repre -
sentation because the 10 Plaintiffs have no authority to change the laws which stipulated by the Law Stipulation Council or other laws whatsoever. The Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 stipulated to “ fix the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line which is the Coast Line at MSL Mr. Amnat Thiangtham stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2499 and as shown in the copy of Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) Along the Sea Sides to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.” But the exercise of Mr. Amnat Thiangtham by submitting the Plaint to the court and stated that the 10 Plaintiffs “ considered that the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree is at the distance of 100 meters from the former Coast Line Outward into the sea NOT the MSL”, was never correct which it would and will never be accepted by the 10 Plaintiffs whatsoever.

This statement is to state about the serious injury the 10 Plaintiffs received which is almost impossible to be remedied and needed to ask for Your Honor’s kind understanding from the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court to understand the different understanding of the 10 Plaintiffs from what Mr. Amnat Thiangtham had stated in the aforementioned Plaint to the court.

The 10 Plaintiffs received information in the same month which was in January 2551 that Mr. Amnat Thiangtham, the Appointed Person of the 10 Plaintiffs had nominated his name for an Election in order to become a Member of Local Parliament House of Pattaya City Hall which has been 2nd Plaint Receiver. The 10 Plaintiffs acknowledge and accept the legally right and freedom of Mr. Amnat Thiangtham’s choice that it was completely legal and free to do so. But the Damage created to the 10 Plaintiffs’ file ………….


/ Page 10 /
which happened whether on purpose or by genuine mistake whatsoever, it made the 10 Plaintiffs lose their trust in Mr. Amnat Thiangtham’s exercise which has to be brought to the acknowledgement of Court to ask for Your Honor’s kind permission to allow the following statements to be attached with the Plaint dated on 15 January 2008 and “ the Order to the Request for Injunction Lifting or the Procedure to minimize injured consequences before judgment ” therefore to be correct with the Intention of the 10 Plaintiffs and to be able to minimize the Injury created by Mr. Amnat Thiangtham which is “ The 10 Plaintiffs submitted a Plaint dated on 15 January 2551 to explain Law Points and Facts which summarized that, the 10 Plaintiffs accept that
( 9 )
the measurement at the MSL of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning with the technique of Levels Transferring of Bench Mark on Thappraya mountain down to the area in front of the Disputed Building was correct by theory and also accepted that the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree is at the distance of 200 meters from Coast Line at MSL but did not accept the Measurement Method of the Department of Civil Engineer which measuring from the MSL at value 0.00 meter Outward Into the sea for 100 meters to be the Construction Control Line. Then measuring from the said point Inward Onto the Land to the building for another 100 meters to be the distance of 200 meters from the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) which was amended by Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 which prohibited from Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.” The 10 Plaintiffs accepted that the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line which is the Coast Line at MSL as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521, Along the Sea Sides to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.”. The measurement must be done from the Coast Line at MSL Inward Onto the land ONLY, as stated in the Note of the Note of the Meeting to Draft the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 in B.E. 2008 promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 .


Final Statement

The 10 Plaintiffs and all Co-owners including all Thai people wish to have the Environment along Coast Lines protected from being intruded by all Prohibited constructions to be in accordance with the fine intention of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) which was stipulated in order to fulfill the parts which

/ Page 10 /
have been left out in statements of The Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) by NOT intending to give a result which is in contrary with the Intention of Law by State Officials’ Exercise / or NOT giving a result to make Disagreement between Regulations that meant to be supporting each other and NOT making the different result from expectation of Laws. As known in the Principles in stipulation of Law which clarified that the law must be stipulated with Completion of essences, covering every angle and not missing anything, being in agreement with each other with no interruption and also being fair to every party.
( 10 )

The Current 8 Plaintiffs on behalf of all Co-owners would like to confirm all of the above Statements to ask the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court for your Honor’s kind Justice in consideration of this case and please kindly give an Order to Cancel the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 Dated: 28 November 2549 which 1st
Plaint Receiver permitted 2nd Plaint Receiver to construct the Disputed Building by using the result from an the Exercise gained from incorrect interpretation of Law points by the State Officials and it gave the result of exercises to be in contrary with the Intention of Involved Law. Therefore, it is for Justice and effectiveness in protecting the Coast lines by taking control the constructions which may impact the Seas and Shores and also for setting the right Foundation of Standard for Justice for good.

Kuan Mikuan Laew Dtair Ja Proed
(Depending on your Honor’s kind consideration)
- Signed - : Statement Maker

( Mr. Richard Haines )- 4th Plaintiff –



E-mail received from Asia LawWorks on January 15, 2008 2 hours before Rayong Court hearing. This e-mail was attached to my statement


Petition pointing out point of law
and facts Case Black No. 54/2550
Case Red No……./2550

Administrative Court Rayong
Date: 15th January 2008



Mr. Ten B. Aluvis Johannes Maria and group, 10 in all plaint makers
represented by Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, recipient of POA
between

The competent officer, Pattaya City and group, 2 in all plaint receivers

I, Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, recipient of Power of Attorney from the 10 plaint makers, residing at 300/45-46 Moo 12, Thepprasit Road, Nongprue, Banglamung, Chonburi, tel. No. 038-421145, would like to submit a petition to point out points of law and facts to the respected Administrative Court as follows:

The 10 plaint makers would sincerely offer their thanks to the Administrative Court for having ordered the Department of Construction and City Planning, Bangkok to proceed to measure the MSL, reference is made to the testimonial of the Department of Construction and City Planning, Bangkok dated 26th December 2007. The 10 plaint makers would like to point out to the court that the 10 plaint makers are unable to accept the report on the measurement of MSL of the Department ref. Mor. Tor 0710/9634 dated 19th December 2007 for reasons as follows:

1. The 10 plaint makers accepted the method and technique used in the measurement of MSL by the Department of Construction and City Planning, Bangkok that such was done in accordance with the accepted method, but the 10 plaint makers are unable to accept the statement that “the coastal line at MSL must commence to be measured from MSL that has the value of 0.00 m., which if measured from the said point out into the sea for 100 m. shall be the building control boundary in accordance with the plan attached to the Royal Decree promulgating the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Nongprue, Nongplalai, Naklua, Chonburi B.E. 2521 and when measured from the said point in land to the front of the building another 100 m shall be the distance away from the building control point 200 m .as in point 3 of Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), amended by Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 that prohibited the building with height above 14 m. from the road.”

In point of law, the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) clearly stated that the stipulation to measure 200 m. from building control boundary, the side of the sea, to measure from the coastal line at MSL and there is no law in this Ministerial Regulations stipulated the measurement be taken into the sea for 100 m. and measured a further 100 m. on land to attain 200 m. from buildings control boundary.
The Ministerial Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) stipulated the measurement of 100 m. from buildings control boundary as per map attached to the Royal Decree, the side of the sea measuring from the coastal line (the coastal line means the alignment of the highest the sea reaches at natural high tide) as the area which prohibits a building to be taller than 14 m.

The Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 stipulated the measurement of 200 m. from buildings control boundary as per map attached to the Royal Decree, the side of the sea measuring from the coastal line at MSL as the area which prohibits a building to be taller than 14 m.

In accordance with both the Ministerial Regulations mentioned above the measurement of distance was clearly stated that “ measured from the buildings control boundary” it did not state that measurement must be taken from “MSL” and both said lines, the letter from the Department of Construction and City Planning, Bangkok to the Administrative Court, Rayong dated 26th December 2007 confirms likewise that “MSL” and buildings control boundary’ are not the same line as appeared in the case file in court.

And in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) as per the map attached to the Royal Decree promulgating the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479, the yellow line is the buildings control boundary, held to be the same line, details can be found in sketch form attached to the Royal Decree promulgating the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 and map of the building control boundary, documents attached 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

The two arrows pointing in opposite directions ----> <---- in the map attached to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) means the buildings control boundary has been extended 100 m. into the sea from the building control boundary, which, in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) are still the same coastal line but Issue 9 stipulated for clarity the point to be measured must be at the coastal point at MSL for the expansion of area of building control from previously and not to be measured in two directions. The 10 plaint makers have evidence in support from many Ministerial Regulations that stipulated the building prohibition boundary/zone in many provinces in Thailand, all stipulated the distance of 200 m. from coastal line, all landward and prohibited buildings higher than 12 m. only and not 14 m. as in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and Issue 9, to protect and safeguard the environment and not to bring forth effects from the sea and (to) the coastal line. Therefore the mentioning of the measurement in two directions has no reason for the 10 plaint makers to readily accept, details are as in the comparison chart of the various Ministerial Regulations in use to stipulate the building control boundary and the conclusion of the Ministerial Regulations on the prohibited building area, document attached No. 3.

2. The 10 plaint makers would further submit for the attention of the Administrative Court the Minutes of the Committee drafting the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), to stipulate the distance of 100 m. measuring from the building control boundary as per map attached, the side of the sea on to land as area which a building taller than 14 m. can not be erected, where in the meeting there was a correction with the elimination of the words “on to land’ as it was seen that the said wordings were already clear. Therefore “to stipulate the distance of 100 m. by measuring from building control boundary as per map attached, the side of the sea, as the boundary which a building taller than 14 m. may not be erected” shall be used.

The meeting gave consent to this draft Ministerial Regulations because, the meeting wanted to protect the coastal area with building control which may affect the sea and was of the opinion that “the minority must make sacrifice for the majority”. The said Minutes of the draft Ministerial Regulations are kept at Office of the Committee for the drafting of Royal Decrees where the 10 plaint makers had copied only in parts as a full Photostat was not permitted, details as appeared, in parts, in the Minutes of the drafting committee of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) that the 10 plaint makers had hand copied, document attached to petition No 4.

With reasons as respectfully placed before the Administrative Court, it is pleaded that the Administrative Court kindly consider the petition of the 10 plaint makers and take same for consideration prior to issuing an order or making a judgement in the case.


Signed …………………………….. petitioner
(Mr. Amnat Thiengtham)
Recipient of Power of Attorney from the 10 plaint makers






Statement from 8 Plaintiffs Black Case No. 54/2007
Red Case No: ....………

Rayong Provincial Administrative Court
24 March 2009

Mr. Tenbult Alewis Maria Plaintiff No: 1 and 10 Associates

Between
Pattaya City Hall Official Defendant No: 1 Plaint Receivers
View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. No: 2

I, hereby: Miss Jeerisumai Na Nongkai and / or Mr. Teerapan Pankiri,
On behalf of: The Appointed Person of the 8 Plaint Receivers,
Address: 505 /12 Moo: -, Street: Ramkhamhaeng, Trok / Soi: Ramkham-
Haeng 39 ( Tepleela 1), Tambol / Sub-district: Wangthonglang, Amphur / District: Wangthonglang, Province: Bangkok, Zip code: 10310, Telephone: 02 – 318 – 4292 – 3, would like to submit a Statement with the following statements.

1. In this case, The Court called for 1st Trail today. The 8 Plaintiffs
would like to state to confirm the Facts and Law Points which were in the Plaint, the Additional Plaint, the Objection to Statement and the Additional Explanation by summarize to be Prior Points as follow;
2. First, the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2499 was promulgated and also the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 which the reason of promulgating was “According to the Royal Decree which promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongprue and Nakluea Sub-districts, Chonburi Province BE. 2499 and the aforementioned areas are tourist attractions, some types of construction which may cause interference or disturbance and Waste products and may ruin the environment should be prohibited from being constructed, therefore this ……….

/ Page 2 /
Ministerial Regulations is needed to be promulgated ”. By Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), fixes the area within the distance of 100 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.

( 1 )
Later on, there was the Promulgation of Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521with a reason of is “According to the rapid growth of constructions in the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nongprue and Na kluea Sub-districts, Chonburi Province and it appears that some constructions are not under the stipulation of law governing Construction Control, because the matter that the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongprue and Nakluea Sub-districts, Chonburi Province BE 2499 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 help Local officials to enforce the law in those areas, therefore, this Royal Degree is needed to be promulgated” also the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 by cancel Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) and replace with the new statement by fixing the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521, Along the Sea Sides to be the prohibited areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces. The Reason of promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) was “ Because there was an adjustment of the Construction Control Line over the regions of Banglamung,
/ Page 3 /
Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district by expanding it as shown in the Annexed Map of 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 is 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 certain types of buildings in the Construction Control Line as stipulated in the aforementioned Royal Decree, therefore to be more appropriate and in accordance, this Ministerial Regulations is needed to be promulgated”.

The 8 Plaintiffs would like to stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regu-
lations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 fixing the area within the distance of 100 meters measured from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map, Along the sea sides inward onto the land, to be the prohibited areas for buildings as stated in Clause 3 (1)-(8) which including Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces. Later on, when the Construction Control Line over the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district by expanding it as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of
( 2 )
Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 was promulgated however, to expand the Construction Control Line especially on the Sea side, therefore the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) should be stipulated to amend and add on the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) to expand the Construction Control Area for such types as stated in Clause 3 (1)-(8) to be wider from the former 100 meters to 200 meters, inward onto the land to be in accordance with the Intention for promulgating the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521, therefore it is clearly shown that both Regulations has a connected and related process which needed to be interpreted to be in accordance with each other. Considering the Types of Prohibited Constructions by Clause 3 (1)-(8) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) however, it shows by conditions and uses of the aforementioned Buildings which all needed to be
/ Page 4 /
constructed on land, certainly not in the sea. Therefore the interpretation of the word “ Expand to be wider from before ” as shown in the Note of Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) can not mean expanding of the Construction Control Line outward into the sea surely, because it will make the expansion of the Construction Control Line un-enforceable Practically as intended and purposed by law.

Therefore the interpretation of Clause 3 (1)-(8) of Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) which fixes the area within the distance of 200 Meters ..….. meant the Expansion of Construction Control Line as in Clause 3 (1)-(8) from the Sea side inward onto the land to be wider from 100 meters before to be 200 meters. As for 100 meters which expanded the Construction Control Line outward into the sea as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree B.E. 2521 however, has not been stipulated in any Regulations to take control any constructions in the sea specifically, which the Minister of Ministry of the Interior will be empowered to issue another Ministerial Regulations to fix the Construction Control Area for certain types of constructions in the area within the distance of 100 meters outward into the sea to be appropriate with changes of situations in the future.

( 3 ) The 8 Plaintiffs would like to stated to court that the starting point of measurement by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 which stipulated that “ Stipulated to fix the area within the distance of 100 meters measured from the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE. 2479 Along the Sea side to be the prohibited areas for construction of certain types of buildings ….( 8 ) Buildings 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
( 3 )
promulgated to enforce the Control Acts BE. 2479, over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE 2521, along the sea sides to be the prohibited

/ Page 5 /
land for the following types of constructions… (8) Building taller than 14 meters from road surfaces”. The starting point of measurement as stipulated in both aforementioned Ministerial Regulations are not the same point. Mr. Supol Pongtaipat, Chief of 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 meters 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 by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) is not fixed to be measured at the MSL but by the Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is listed to be measured at the MSL only” Therefore, from the explanation of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as above, it shows that, by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) is the measurement from the Coast line which means the High Tide, but in Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) is to measure the Coast Line at MSL which means the stating point for measurement listed in both Ministerial Regulations are not the same point.

From the above fact stated to the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court, if the interpretation is made as interpreted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning and Witness’ testimony however, the measurement from the Coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) on the North and South Side of the Disputed land to the Bench Mark is 50.15 and 49.60 meters respectively. When comparison is made with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) which is from Coast Line to the Bench Mark of land of 2nd Plaint Receiver will be the distance of 39 meters, therefore it shows that the Coast Line at MSL and the Coast Line ( High Tide ) are about 11 meters away from each other.

The aforementioned interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) will show that the Construction Control Line as in Clause 3. ( 8 ) which prohibited Buildings taller than 14 meters from Road surfaces is narrower than the Construction Control Line as in Clause 3. ( 8 ) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) which gives the result of bringing Buildings taller than 14 meters from
/ Page 6 /
Road surfaces closer to the sea for approx. 11 meters which is not in agreement with the Intention and Purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) which expanding for the wider area as mentioned for the purpose of fixing the Construction Control Area along the sea side to be wider than before. If the interpretation was made as to expand the Construction Control Area by the Ministerial Regulations Issue
( 4 )
9 ( B.E. 2521) was the Expansion of distance along the sea side inward onto the land for 200 meters, then it would be in agreement with Intention and Purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) as respectfully stated to the Court as above.
4. The 8 Plaintiffs would like to add on explaining to 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. 2479, or the Construction Control Acts enforcing over the Area which was burnt B.E. 2476, can be enforced as long as they are not in contrary with this Act”. The 8 Plaintiffs acknowledge that, not only all Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which promulgated under being empowered by both aforementioned Acts will be able to enforce as long as they are not in contrary with the provision of the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522. The interpretation to enforce those Ministerial Regulations, Local Provisions or Orders must be done in the way to be in accordance with the intention and purpose of enforcing the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522 and involved laws also, for the related Exercises to be in accordance with the intention and purpose of enforcing the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522 which since the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522 has been enforced, until the presence time that the Ministerial Regulations as issued following Article 8 (10) have been enforced however, in the part that involving areas class as shores which are Public attractions or Tourist destinations , by stipulated to be the Prohibited areas for certain types of buildings which may cause interference, disturbance and waste products, in the same way of issuing the Regulations Issue 8 and 9 which stipulated to be in accordance with The Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479, therefore there have been 12 Ministerial Regulations which each one stipulated to fix within 200 meters from the Coast Line to be Prohibited area for Buildings taller than 12 meters as shown in the Attachment of the Revisal and
/ Page 7 /
Additional Plaint with has been already attached with the case. Therefore it is clearly shown that by the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522 and involved Regulations which enforced over areas by the sea in the kingdom, all intend to preserve the Environment and the Ecological system by the Sea shores measuring from the Coast line at Natural High Tide inward onto the land for 200 meters, prohibited from all 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, is the prohibited area for the building taller than 14 meters is also in contrary with the purpose of enforcing the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522.
( 5 )
5. From the facts shown in the survey of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning which shown already in the case, The Building of 2nd Plaint Receiver which issued by 1st Plaint Receiver to construct is located only 102 meters from the Coast line at MSL only.

Apart from the above Facts and Law Points kindly stated in the Plaint, the Additional Plaint, the Objection to Statement, the Additional Explanation and all Attached documents which had been with this case already, the 8 Plaintiffs would like to state to the court that the Measurement to find the Construction Control Line to be in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 which the Court kindly gave an Order for the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to proceed and submit its opinion to Court however, it is the Prior Point and Essence to lead to the outcome of consideration of this case, especially the point of Interpretation and Enforcing the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) and Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 which the Opinion and Interpretation may effect Environment and Public who have residences in the areas of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province in the Future as well.
/ Page 8 /
The Interpretation to be in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) and Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) as stated by the 8 Plaintiffs as above is absolutely the interpretation for Public benefit. Because the areas of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province are Tourist attractions which are beautiful and deserve the Life Long Environmental Protection which will be an effect for the Public to have good environment, Pollution free and if the aforementioned areas are still remain in life long beautiful condition however, then they will benefit Tourist Industry for the Nation forever, which if 2nd Plaint Receiver manages to build its 27 Floors Building however, it may open to other Investors to build their buildings in similar way all along the Shore in the Areas of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province which will destroy Beauty and Good Environmental Condition from the most famous Tourist Destinations of Thailand.

From the Reasons, Facts, and Law Points as stated to the Court as above and from what submitted in the Plaint, the Additional Plaint and all Attached documents of this case to Rayong Provincial Administrative Court however, it is shown that because 1st Plaint Receiver issued a license for 2nd Plaint Receiver to construct View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium ( Project 7 ) which consists of 27 floors or approx. 81 meters, apart from damaging the 8 Plaintiffs by blocking Wind directions and sunlight from shining to the building of 8 Plaintiffs, ruining the Sew view Sceneries which were the prior reason of purchasing condominium units in Jomthien Complex Condotel of the 8 Plaintiffs and also all Co-owners, also Cracking of walls and Dust spreading which created Air Pollution and has been impacted residents’ respiratory system, the Permission by 1st Plaint Receiver which permitted
( 6 )
2nd Plaint Receiver to construct its disputed building was the Beneficially Production for 2nd Plaint Receiver which is a Private company without considering of Public Benefit whatsoever.
/ Page 8 /
Therefore the 8 Plaintiffs are asking for kind consideration from the Court to revoke the Construction License No: 162/ 2550 Dated: 28 November B.E. 2549 which permitted 2nd Plaint Receiver to construct View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium ( Project 7 ) as shown in the Plaint and Additional Plaint of the 8 Plaintiffs.

Kuan Mikuan Laew Dtair Ja Proed
(Depending on your Honor’s kind consideration)
- 2 signatures Signed - Appointed Person of the 8 Plaintiffs
(Miss Jeerisumai Na Nongkai and / or Mr. Teerapan Pankiri)



VT7 lawyer enter a statement document which the translation is posted below. Pattaya City entered no statements. Our testimony and expert witness will be posted after receiving the translation.



Statement (VT7 lawyer) Black Case No. 54/2007
Red Case No: ....………


Rayong Provincial Administrative Court

24 March 2009
Mr. Tenbult Alewis Maria Plaintiff No: 1 and 10 Associates

Between

Pattaya City Hall Official Defendant No: 1 Plaint Receivers
View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. No: 2

I, hereby, View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd ………
By Mr. Preecha Techamualwaiwit, the Appointed Person………2nd Plaint Receiver
Would like to submit this statement to court with the following statements.

1. In this case, The Court called for 1st Trail today. 2nd Plaint Receiver
had already received the Summery of Facts Finding made by the Judicial of this case together with the Writ of Schedule of 1st Trail from Rayong Provincial Administrative Court, Dated 26 February 2009 and acknowledged many statements as Claimed to be Prior Essences in the Plaints and the Facts found by the Enquiry of court, including statements appeared in the Plaints, Statements or Explanations of the Plaintiffs which were not in accordance with the stipulation of Laws, and also have some False statements among those documents. 2nd Plaint Receiver considers that it is appropriate to bring up those statements for Court Consideration as follow;

( 1 ) 10 Plaintiffs stated in their Plaints, at first, The Pattaya City Hall
(1st Plaint Receiver) issued the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 Dated on 28 November 2549 to View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. ( 2nd Plaint Receiver ) by being incorrect to the stipulated Standard, Method and Condition in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 fixing the area within the distance of 200 meters measured from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 along the sea sides to be the prohibited areas for buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces, without specified by the 10 Plaintiffs that in which stipulated Standard, Method and Condition in the law that The Pattaya City Hall (1st Plaint Receiver ) broke.

( See Clause 4 – 5 of the Plaint )

( 1 )
/ Page 2 /
2) On Enquiry concerning the Injunction of the 10 Plaintiffs on 28 March 2550, Mr. Amnat Tiangtam, the appointed Person stated to the Rayong Provincial Administrative court that “ 2nd Plaint Receiver constructs the building away from the MSL which was the Low Tide for 100 meters only not 200 meters as stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ”.

And

Also stated to the court that “ the point used by the Plaintiffs to start measuring to find the distance of 200 meters referred to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the MSL meant the Low Tide to be the starting point for measurement which if start measuring from this point, then the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver would be within the distance of 200 meters as stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ”.
All above statements which were stated to the court by the Appointed Person of
the 10 Plaintiffs do not exist in the law, just intended to create confusion only because the statement in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 amended by Clause 2 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) which stated to cancel the statement in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 and replace by the following statements which was “ In Clause 3, states to fix the area within the distance of 200 meters by measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 along the sea sides to be the prohibited areas for building types as follow ( 8 ) buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces ”.

From the stipulation of the aforementioned law, the Measurement to fix
200 Meters which fixed to be the prohibited area for construction of Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces, therefore the measurement must be started from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the areas of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 along the sea sides and it clearly appears in the aforementioned Annexed Map that the Construction Control is located at the distance of 100 meters away outward into the sea from the MSL, then the measurement must be started from that line inward onto the land which would be used for construction for 200 meters. The result certainly is the Prohibited area for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces. Therefore as stated to the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court by the Appointed Person of the 10 Plaintiffs which was “2nd Plaint Receiver has constructed its Building away from the MSL which was the Low Tide for just about 100 meters and not 200 meters as stipulated in the Ministerial

( 2 )
Regulations Issue 9 ” and “ the point used by the Plaintiffs to start measuring to find the distance of 200 meters referred to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the MSL meant the Low Tide to be the starting point for measurement ” therefore, it was false without fact and not acceptable.

Therefore, I would like to bring these points for Court’s Consideration.
Please be kind give permission as requested.
Respectfully Yours,

- Signed - 2nd Plaint Receiver
( Mr. Preecha Techamualwaiwit VT7 lawyer )
Appointed Person

We have been officially asked to restrict your comments to e-mails only!