Saturday our Bangkok Lawyers informed use that the 1st “Enquiry” will be held at the Rayong Administrative Court. The hearing will be on the 24th of March 2009.
We find this notice from the court being very good news. More about this hearing will be post at a later date after we receive the English translation.
Our legal action goes forward with an enquirer hearing of facts.
We thank all who support the Thai legal system.
The Stopvt7 Group
Objection to Supplementary Statement
Black Case No. 54/2550 (2007)
The Administrative Court of Rayong
23 February 2009
Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No. 1 and 9 Associates Ltigants
Between
Pattaya City Local Office First Prosecuted Person
View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. Second Prosecuted Person
The Undersigned, Miss Pachjama Palakes and/or Miss Jirisumai Na Nhongkai, resided at No. 505/12 Ramkhamhaeng Road, Soi Ramkhamhaeng 39 (Thepleela 1) Khwang Wang Thong Lang, Khet Wang Thong Lang, Bangkok, are the legal representatives from of the ligitants, would like to file following objections to the supplementary statement as follows:
1). The 8 litigants acknowledged the supplementary statement given by the 2 Prosecuted Persons and would file the following objections based on the following reasons: …….
2). The 1st Prosecuted Person stated in its supplementary statement relating the measurement of construction restricted area in accordance with Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 that
“…the measurement was conducted by Officers of the Department of Civil Engineering, and the 8 Litigants used to mention that they will take the measurement result if done by the Officers of the Department of Public Works. Whereas the measurement result appeared that the building of the 2nd Prosecuted Person is not within the 200 meter measured from construction restricted zone in which the building of higher than 14 meter will not be permitted, therefore, the issue of 200 meters prescribed under Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) the 1st Prosecuted Person considered that such issue was concluded by the fact that has been already verified.
In addition, the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 enforced upon the area shown on the Map attached to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to area of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province (See Annex 7). Therefore, the areas applied under the Regulation are only certain areas.”
The 8 Litigants would object the supplementary statement filed by the 1st Prosecuted Person as follows:
It is true that all the 8 litigants would accept the method of measurement conducted by the Officer of the Department of Public Engineering and City Planning, which measured from the MSL into seashore to obtain 100 meter. The acceptance of such measurement will be solely based on academic theory according to details appeared on the letter dated 17 November 2007 (Annex 1 to the objection to additional statement). However, the interpretation of the promulgating of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) of the Department of Civil Works and City and Planning who presented it comments in this case to the Court – according to the opinion of the 8 Litigants, was contravened to the spirit and intention of the enforcement of laws resulting impact to the interest of the 8 Litigants and public interests, environment protection which has been presented in the plaints and petitions of the 8 Litigants which can be summarized that:
2.1 The interpretation for law enforcement of the Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) requires consideration on other relevant laws. In the areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khue, Tambol Nhong Prue, Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi province, where the first Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) was initiated, the spirit of this Issue read under the Remarks of the said Regulation:
“The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue, and Tambol Nhong Prue of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allowed to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.”
Later, the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) was released. The spirit of this Issue read under the Remarks of the said Regulation:
“The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction area as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling area under the aforesaid Royal Decree. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.”
The objective of issuance of the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) is to extend the construction controlling areas in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province in which the areas are public resort under the enforcement of Regulation No. 9 which covers
200 meter distance from the building restriction line on the map annexed to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 toward the shore line. This is the area where the buildings referred in Clause 3 (1) – (8) shall not be permitted. Where the interpretation must be incorporated with the spirit of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519), the extension of construction control under Clause 3 (1) – (8) from 100 meters to 200 meters shall be regarded as extension from the sea toward the land to prevent construction of buildings forbidden under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 and No. 9.
It is logical to say that the nature and usage of such building will never be possible to build on the sea. Hence, the extension of construction restriction can never be translated that “broader extended” in accordance with the note following the Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) that the construction control line was extended into the sea because the enforcement of such meaning would never be possible.
It is consequently necessary to interpret the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) Clause 3 prescribing the area within 200 meters ….. is the extension of construction control line in accordance with Clause 3 (1) – (8) from the sea toward the land from 100 meters to 200 meters. The 100 meters of construction control extended in the map annex to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 has not been prescribed in any Ministerial Regulation to control building construction in the sea. The Ministry of Interior shall exercise his authority to set future Regulation governing 100 meter construction control in the sea as appropriate in future.
2.2 The interpretation of Construction Control Line under the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) etc, which the Court admitted the fact appeared in the report presented by the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning as well as the witness’ testimony that the building in conflict is exceeding 100 meters from MSL which resulted Court to terminate temporary protection measure before judgment to the 2nd Prosecuted Person in ceasing construction of the building higher than 14 meters which is extended 11 meters beyond the construction control area under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) resulting entitlement of construction of the building over 14 meters closer to the sea and inconsistent to the spirit of law, as shown in the Supplementary Plaints filed by the 8 Litigants.
2.3 The 8 Litigants would clarify further that in view of Section 79 of the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 stating “All Ministerial Regulations, Municipal Laws, Provincial Regulations, Rules and Procedures, Notice and other Orders issued pursuant to the power of the Building Construction Act B.E. 2479 or Building Construction within Burnt Area Act B.E. 2476, shall remain in force in so far as they are not contravened to this Act.” The 9 Litigants are of the opinion that not only other Ministerial Regulations, Ministerial Laws, Provincial Regulations Rules and Procedures, Notice, and other Orders issued pursuant to the power of the Building Construction Act B.E. 2479, will remain enforced in so far as they are not contravened to the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522, but the interpretation, enforcement of the Ministerial Regulations, Local Laws and Orders must also incorporate with the spirit of Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E 2522 and other relevant laws to ensure the spirit of the law be implemented.
Since the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 has been enforced, Ministerial Regulations under Section 8 (10) related to sea beach or public resort controlling restriction of the construction of some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions in the same objective of the Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) altogether 12 issues. Each Issue was clearly stated mainly that “Within the 200 meter distance from the beach line construction of building higher than 12 meter shall not be allowed.” Details appeared in the Supplementary Plaint.
Therefore, it is obvious that the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 and relevant Ministerial Regulations which apply to beaches area around the country are aiming to protect environmental surrounding and ecosystem of the beach area measured from the coastline upon the natural highest tide toward the land by 200 meter distance by restriction of construction of some kinds of building that may disturb to good environment including the building higher than 12 meters. Interpretation of the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) to measure 200 meter from the “Construction Control Line” which is 100 meters from MSL further into the sea to be restricted area for construction of building higher than 14 meters shall be in contravention to the spirit of the promulgating of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 alike.
3. In addition to the objection of the 8 Litigants to the supplementary statement referred to in aforesaid Article 1 and Article 2, the 8 Litigants would clarify further that this case has been filed the plaint and supplementary plaint to the Administrative Court of Rayong requesting the Court to order the 1st Prosecuted Person to revoke the Construction Permit No. 162/2550 dated 29 November 2006 granting to the View Talay Jomthien Condominium 1990 Company Limited (The 2nd Prosecuted Person) based on the clarification, facts of law, that have been presented to the Court in our plaint and the various documents appeared in the file of the case. The 8 Litigants are of the opinion that the measurement of the construction control line under the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, which the Court ordered the
Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning to conduct and to present their comments to the Court is the crucial issue leading toward the judgment of this case. Particularly the interpretation and enforcement of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) and the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 of which the opinion and interpretation may cause disturbance and impact to the public residence within the areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue, Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province in future.
The interpretation of the spirit of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519 and Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) etc. presented by the 8 Litigants is the interpretation which will be in favor of public interests because the land and beach areas in the territory of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung or Chonburi Province are beautiful resorts that deserve protection and keeping up good environment forever resulting pleasant living environment, free of pollution to maintain its tourist attraction characteristic. Should the 2nd Prosecuted Person be allowed to continue its construction of a 27-storey building, other real estate developers might follow suit resulting long line of high-rise buildings along the beautiful beach of the territory of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamug of Chonburi Province destroying the most beautiful and well-known resort of Thailand.
With reference to the clarifications, fact of laws as presented to the Administrative Court of Rayong appeared in the plaint and supplementary plaints including the various documents in this file of the case, it is clearly verified that where the 1st Prosecuted Person granting Construction Permit to the 2nd Prosecuted Person to construct View Talay Jomthien Beach Condominium (Project 7) which has 27-level high or approximate 81 meters, not only will cause damage to the 8 Litigants from being blocked off the beautiful sea view, wind blow, sunshine, to the dwelling within Jomthien Complex Condotel Condominium similar to other buyers to the same condominium, it also cause building wall cracks, air pollution thus resulting in respiration sickness to the residents.
The issuance of Construction Permit by the 1st Prosecuted Person to the 2nd Prosecuted Person was to permit construction of illegal building which considered assisting private business operator who has no good intention to the public in constructing the building in conflict.
Consequently, the 8 Litigants would kindly ask the Court to revoke the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 permitting the 2nd Prosecuted Person to construct the View Talay Jomthien Beach Condominium (Project 7) in accordance with the plaint and supplementary plaint of the 8 Litigants.
Yours respectfully,
Signed
…………………………………………………………
Miss Pachjama Palaket, Miss Jirisumai Na Nhongkai
Legal Representatives of the 8 Litigants
Document 1Annex to the Objection to Supplement Statement
Made at Jomthien Beach in front of the conflict building
Dated 17 November 2007
The Undersigned of this document are representatives of the Black Case No. 54/2550 of the Administrative Court of Rayong between Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No. 1 and 9 Associates, the Litigants of the one part and Pattaya City Local Office, First Prosecuted Person and 2 Associates, the Prosecuted Person of the other parts.
The Representative of the Parties entered the observation throughout the measurement process to identify the shoreline at Mean Sea Level (MSL) conducted by the 8 officers of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning starting by level transfer from the Brass Rivet No. Or Tor MSL CB 0029 which parameter reading 58.989 meters from MSL at the area of Chonburi Meteorological Station (Pattaya) to the area in conflict from Thursday 15 November 2007at 13.00 hours to Saturday 17 November 2007.
Representatives of both Parties considered that the measurement process was conducted properly and accordingly. After measurement, two rivets were installed at the area of conflict at MSL 0.00 meter and 1.4477 meters. Measurement has been conducted from both rivets towards the building in conflict complying with the Court’s order.
To confirm our presence at the measurement throughout the three day process conducted by the officers of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning and that we are satisfied with the measurement method, we have signed our names in this annex:
Signed………………………………… The 4th Litigant
(Mr. Richard )
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr. )
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr. )
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mrs. Napaporn Srinoi)
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr. Thanaset Toomthong)
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr.Chalermchat Vanichratsiri)
Signed ………………………………. 1st Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mr. Chavalit Jariyayanyong)
Signed ………………………………. 2nd Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mr. Somjet Hasan)
Signed ………………………………. 2nd Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mrs. Vilai Supcharoen)
Signed ………………………………. 2nd Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mr. Jirasak Sajja-eng)
Signed ………………………………. Observer from Meteorological Dept.
(Mr. Somjet Hasan)
There are another 22 page which is been translated!
Thanks for your support
StopVT7 Group
Saturday, March 7, 2009
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
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,”
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,”
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,”
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Supreme Court of Administration 18 September 2008 Procedure Ruling
The supreme court decision was a “procedure” ruling. The case is not over and we are studying our next move.
Is it not a traitors statement by Asia LawWorks at the Rayong Court hearing what left the injunction? Read the ending statement from the court below.
“When 2nd Plaint Receiver requested the Administrative court of Rayong Province to cancel the order of Injunction before judgment while the case is still on trial of this court, therefore the First Administrative Court had prior right to cancel the procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment.
The order of canceling the Injunction by the First Administrative Court which ordered to cancel the procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment by seizing the construction under license No: 162 / 2549, Issued date: November 28, 2549 of 2nd Plaint Receiver, only for the part of building that higher than 14 meters from road surfaces until other order or judgment is given was in agreement with Clause 77 of the Regulations of General Meeting of Supreme Court of Administration governing the Administrative Enquiry Procedures of B.E. 2543 together with Phrase 1 of Article 262 of the Civil Code.
“The claim of 8 Plaintiffs in the Appeal stated that the measurement starting point to find the distance of 200 meters to be in accord with Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) which stipulated following the Construction Control Act of B.E> 2479 and amended by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) which stipulated following the Construction Control Act of B.E> 2479 IS AT High Tide line along the Coast Line NOT at the distance of 100 meters from the MSL along Coast Line OUTWARD to the sea however, is the issue concerning tenor of the case which needed to be considered after. The Appeal of 8 Plaint Receivers which stated that the cancellation of Injunction order given by the First Administrative Court was done without enough ground is not reasonable to be taken to proceed.
Therefore the court stands the same order to be in agreement with the order given by the First Administrative Court.
_Signed_ : Assigned Judicial
Mr. Worapot Wisrutpitch
Judicial of the Supreme Court of Administration”
Now compare Issue 9 update with the original Issue 8:
1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the followings statement:
“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2520”
2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the following statement:
“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
Place for keeping and selling fuel
• Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).
General Lek Naewmalee
Minister of Interior
(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)
Civil Engineer Grade 7
Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.
Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)
Certified correct
(Mr. Yuthana Rittisit)
Administrative Officer
Public Utility Section
This Ministerial Regulation applies to the boundary line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479.”
2. The land areas under this Ministerial Regulation are restricted from construction of the following buildings:
3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
• Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
The area under Article 3 above, Construction of building, house must be at least 8 meters away from Highway No. 3135.
Building or house construction must be provided with 75% open, and uncovered space of size to the land plot on which the construction is applied for.
This Ministerial Regulation is given on the date of twelfth, June B.E. 2519 (1976)
MRV Seni Pramot
Ministry of Interior
Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 93 Section 87 dated 29 June 1966.
Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allow to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.
Certified correct copy
(Signed) Yuthana Rittisit
Administrative Officer
Public Utility Section
Office of the Secretary
Copy taken and reviewed by : Wallada
(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)
Civil Engineer Grade 7
Is it not a traitors statement by Asia LawWorks at the Rayong Court hearing what left the injunction? Read the ending statement from the court below.
“When 2nd Plaint Receiver requested the Administrative court of Rayong Province to cancel the order of Injunction before judgment while the case is still on trial of this court, therefore the First Administrative Court had prior right to cancel the procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment.
The order of canceling the Injunction by the First Administrative Court which ordered to cancel the procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment by seizing the construction under license No: 162 / 2549, Issued date: November 28, 2549 of 2nd Plaint Receiver, only for the part of building that higher than 14 meters from road surfaces until other order or judgment is given was in agreement with Clause 77 of the Regulations of General Meeting of Supreme Court of Administration governing the Administrative Enquiry Procedures of B.E. 2543 together with Phrase 1 of Article 262 of the Civil Code.
“The claim of 8 Plaintiffs in the Appeal stated that the measurement starting point to find the distance of 200 meters to be in accord with Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) which stipulated following the Construction Control Act of B.E> 2479 and amended by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) which stipulated following the Construction Control Act of B.E> 2479 IS AT High Tide line along the Coast Line NOT at the distance of 100 meters from the MSL along Coast Line OUTWARD to the sea however, is the issue concerning tenor of the case which needed to be considered after. The Appeal of 8 Plaint Receivers which stated that the cancellation of Injunction order given by the First Administrative Court was done without enough ground is not reasonable to be taken to proceed.
Therefore the court stands the same order to be in agreement with the order given by the First Administrative Court.
_Signed_ : Assigned Judicial
Mr. Worapot Wisrutpitch
Judicial of the Supreme Court of Administration”
Now compare Issue 9 update with the original Issue 8:
Ministerial Regulation
Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)
Issued under the Building Construction Control Act
B.E. 2479
Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)
Issued under the Building Construction Control Act
B.E. 2479
By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:
1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the followings statement:
“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2520”
2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the following statement:
“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
Place for keeping and selling fuel
• Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).
General Lek Naewmalee
Minister of Interior
(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)
Civil Engineer Grade 7
Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.
Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)
Certified correct
(Mr. Yuthana Rittisit)
Administrative Officer
Public Utility Section
Ministerial Regulation
Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)
Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479
By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:This Ministerial Regulation applies to the boundary line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479.”
2. The land areas under this Ministerial Regulation are restricted from construction of the following buildings:
3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
• Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
The area under Article 3 above, Construction of building, house must be at least 8 meters away from Highway No. 3135.
Building or house construction must be provided with 75% open, and uncovered space of size to the land plot on which the construction is applied for.
This Ministerial Regulation is given on the date of twelfth, June B.E. 2519 (1976)
MRV Seni Pramot
Ministry of Interior
Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 93 Section 87 dated 29 June 1966.
Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allow to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.
Certified correct copy
(Signed) Yuthana Rittisit
Administrative Officer
Public Utility Section
Office of the Secretary
Copy taken and reviewed by : Wallada
(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)
Civil Engineer Grade 7
Friday, October 17, 2008
The October 17 Supreme Court of Administrative Decision
The Supreme Court chose not to change Rayong Court order which lifted the injunction. Because Rayong Court used a expert witness in making their decision the court chose not to interfere.
We wait for the translation which we will post on this blog.
We wait for the translation which we will post on this blog.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
On October 17 a Supreme Court decision will be read at Rayon Administrative Court Building.
Dear Ladies, Gentlemen of JCC and friends,
The Supreme Court of Administration
I have been asked. Why it is the Supreme Court of Administration Court decision will be read in Rayong? Because Rayong is the court of record.
The SCofA reading is a formal affair. At the set time the order is received by computer at the court room and printed than give the judge. After the judge receives the order all stand while the Rayong judge read the order aloud into the court record. At this time the decision becomes the law.
We do not try to guess what the order will say. But, our appeal asked the court to either put the injunction back on VT7 or to make the finial decision.
Below is the ending quotation from our appeal:
“the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will be operative , and truly useful for public. This case has no cause to lift the aforesaid injunction / or revoke the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment. With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court’s kind consideration to give court’s decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)