VT7 has responded to our Supreme Administrative Court appeal। Their fist two points of their answer to our appeal have already been rejected by the Supreme Court. The only thing they bring new is the Bangkok Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer office report. This report was not need or we feel it is inaccuracy when it claims to measure into the sea 100 meters from the control construction line at MSL before you measure onto the land 100 meters.
This claim by Bangkok Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer ignore The darting minuted which are part of the regulation। These minutes state measured from the construction control line according to the map annexed, from the sea towards the shore shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings (8) Building of 14 meters above the road surface.” “Further amendment was to delete the wording “towards the shore” since the wording was clearly understood,”
We look forward to Supreme Court decision because they have reversely answered The VT7 claims before when in August 2007 they said:
Nevertheless,............. the Ministerial Regulation No. 9...................... prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map………………….. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No।
The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.
Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich Judge of Supreme Administrative Court”
Translation Copy of document
Supreme Court of Administration vt7 reply
PLAINT No.: 486 / 2008
(Case of the Administrative of Rayong province)
Explanation of 2nd Plaint Receivers Black Case No.: 54 / 2007
( to object the Appeal of the Plaintiffs) Red Case No.: ……………
The Supreme Court of Administration August 13, 2008
Mr. Tenbult Alewis Maria and 10 Associates Plaintiffs
Between
Pattaya City Hall Official and 2 Associates Plaint Receivers
I, hereby View Thalay Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd., by Mr. Preecha Techamuan- waiwit, the appointed person # 2nd………………........... Plaint Receiver,
Would like to submit this explanation to object “the Appeal against the rejection order of the Administrative of Rayong Province” which ordered to reject the Appeal) of date: February 15, 2008, of the Plaintiff # 1st and Associates ( Plaint No.: 486 / 2008) as will show in the following statements;
1. In this case; by the cause of the Order issued on January 16, 2008
by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province to lift the procedure of minimizing injurious consequences / or temporary protection before judgment, which was the order given to the 2nd Plaint Receiver to temporary seize the construction of the part of the building which was higher than 14 meters above the ground until the judgment or another order is given, therefore, from now ( January 16, 2008) on.
The Plaintiffs lodged the Appeal against the Order of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province which ordered on January 16, 2008 and canceled the temporary procedure of minimizing injurious consequences or protection procedure, which both parties were informed by facsimiles on the aforementioned date.
The Plaintiffs lodged the Appeal against the aforementioned order but the Administrative Court of Rayong rejected that Appeal.
The Plaintiffs then lodged the Appeal against that rejection order to the Supreme Court of Administration, and the Supreme Court was not in agreement with the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, therefore the Supreme Court gave an order to accept the Appeal of the Plaintiffs which lodged on February 15, 2008 to the consideration.
The 2nd Plaint Receiver, by the appointed person: Mr. Preecha Techamuanwaiwit, in capacity of the other party in the appeal, received an order to submit an explanation (Plaint No.: 486 / 2008) from The Supreme Court on July 30, 2008.
The 2nd Plaint Receiver, therefore would like to submit the objection to the Supreme Court of Administration of which will state the matters in the following clarifications.
2. The summary received from analyzing the matters in the Appeal
against the order of January 15, 2008 of the Plaintiffs are ; The Plaintiffs considered that; the Order of lifting Injunction which ordered by the Administrative Court of Rayong province, by using the facts reported by the Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer of Bangkok, issued on December 18, 2007, together with the facts from enquiring the witnesses of this case, the facts revealed that the disputed building is located more than 100 meters from the Mean Sea Level (MSL) which was considered by the court that if the measurement was started from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed map of the Royal Decree, which stipulated the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to be enforced over the regions of Banglamung Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi province in 2521, which is fixed at a 100 meters from MSL, outward in the sea as shown in the aforementioned Annexed Map and witnesses’ testimony; the dispute building is located over 200 meters from the Borderline of Construction Control Area as stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 as well. Therefore the facts which had been used by the court to consider placing the injunction / or procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment as requested by the 10 Plaintiffs of this case has changed; therefore was unlawful because it was the way of using the facts, construing and enforcing the law by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province in the way which is truly in opposite to the intentions or purposes of the law.
The Plaintiffs therefore requested the Supreme Court to order the injunction to continue being enforced as requested by all Plaintiffs,
3. The 2nd Plaint Receiver would like to inform the Supreme Court that the measurements to find the distance of 100 meters which was measured from MSL to the constructed land had been done for 3 times as follow;
1) The First time had been proceeded by the Pattaya City Hall Official, Chonburi Province; as requested by the 2nd Plaint Receiver in BE. 2548, before this case was submitted in court. The measurement of 100 meters then was started at the MSL of the coastline by the North side. It passed through a public area for 49.00 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 51.00 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL. For the south side; It passed through a public area for 49.50 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 50.50 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL for this side as shown in the Attachment NO.1.
2) The Second time had been proceeded by the Department of City Planning and Civil Engineering of Chonburi province in April 2007, after the 2nd Plaint Receiver received the order to seize the construction with the dispute license until another order or the judgment is given ( which had caused extreme un-estimated lose and damage to the 2nd Plaint Receiver ) . The second measurement of 100 meters then was started at the MSL of the coastline by the North side. It passed through a public area for 51.00 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 49.00 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL. For the south side; It passed through a public area for 49.75 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 50.25 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL for this side as shown in the Attachment NO.2.
3) The Third time had been proceeded by The Bangkok Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer officials, which was proceeded between November 15 – 17, 2007, following the order of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province. The result of measurement was shown in the report of December 18, 2007 of that Department which had been submitted to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province. This report showed the correction of the first 2 measurement methods in all details.
4) Considering the Annexed map of the Royal Decree which stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts of Be. 2479 over the regions of Nongplalai, Naguea, Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi province in BE. 2521, the result showed that the Construction Control line. Stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 (BE. 2519), stipulated following the Construction Control Acts of BE. 2479, and had been amended by the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 (BE. 2521), stipulated following the Construction Control Acts of BE. 2521, would be fixed at the 100 meters outward in the sea from the MSL, therefore, when the enquiry of this case by the court showed that the distance of disputed building which received the disputed construction permit of this case is over 100 meters from the MSL. It’s considered without any doubt that the disputed building is also located over 200 meters from the Borderline of Construction Control Area by the seaside. The construction permit is lawful by all stipulations.
The 2nd Plaint Receiver honestly see that the order of lifting injunction /or procedure of minimizing injurious consequences before judgment which had ordered by the Administrative court of Rayong is appropriate.
I, hereby respectfully request the Supreme Court of Administration to give an order or judgment to lift the Appeal of the Plaintiffs.
Respectfully Yours,
- Signed - 2nd Plaintiff
Mr. Preecha Techamuanwaiwit
Appointed person
