1 Mr.

Nutthawat Chantasitti the head of 36 plaintiffs

Royal Irrigation Department defendant
Mr. Nutthawat files a complaint to Nakornrajchasrima administrative court in the case
number (Black code) 586/2552 and in the case number (Red code) 378/2552
For this case, all 36 plaintiffs sue that they are affected by defendant’s Rasrisai weir
construction and have a right to receive compensation for 12,669,335 baht according
to cabinets’ resolution at the 1st October 2002. However, defendant has already paid
some parts of compensation to 1145 members of farmer assembly on 22nd April 1996
and to 775 members on 2nd November 1999.

2 The defendant already paid the compensation to the farmers assembly of North east
of thailand at 22 April 1996 to1,154 people and at 2 November 1999 to 775 people,
but did not pay to these plaintiff. According to announcement, Srisakate province
check and assure that plaintiffs are on the list of people who should be compensated.
However, the defendant argued that those 36 people are not local people who are on
the list that cabinets judge to pay the compensation to. Therefore, plaintiff send the
document to prime minister for investigating and paying all the due compensation.
Nevertheless, there is no response, so they present this lawsuit to administrative court
so that defendant should pay 36 plaintiffs 12,669,334 baht
3
The Administrative Courts of First Instance have ever considered carefully about the
case which 36 prosecutors accused the defendant to compensate for the Rasi-Salai
Dam Development project following the section9 in the first paragraph of the Act of
Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure
B.E.2542 (1999). However, all 36 prosecutors have ever had the writing to ask the
state agency for verifying the name list of people who have ever been affected from
this project. One of the defendants who was the lead of Irrigation project of Sri-Saket
has ever clarify that the prosecutors are not the person who the province informed in
the writing that shows about the agreement (1st October 2002 or B.E.2545) to pay the
compensation from the Council of Minister. And all prosecutors also have already
received this writing.

Therefore, the prosecutors have already known or should know the factors of
prosecution since the day when receiving that writing. Nevertheless, 36prosecutors
still instituted the case to the Administrative Court by mail (which indicate on 6th
October 2005 or B.E.2552). This was considered to be expired following the
section51 of the Act of Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative
Court Procedure B.E.2542 (1999).

Although, later the second prosecutor had the writing to P.M. for investigating
and ordering about this compensation again with the Cabinet has also sent this writing
to the defendants, it still did not make sense to claim to the Administrative Court due
to this accusation did not make any benefits to the public (It is just the benefit for only
those 36prosecutors). This is under the section52 in the second paragraph. So, the
Administrative courts of First Instance have ordered to dismiss this case.
4
Benefits only 36 plaintiffs, not a public interest that court is admissible from section
52, paragraph 2 of Act of Parliament on the founding of administrative tribunal and
administrating case procedure A.D.2542. Thus, the initial administrative tribunal
precepts not to accept the plaint and strike the case out of the case-list
All of the 36 plaintiffs, file a complaint appeal to the precept of the initial
administrative tribunal that did not accept the plaint stating that the construction of
“Rashi-Sai” Dam has the purpose to benefit the public, allowing the citizens to have
water in use of agricultural, and consumption. In which, the construction of dam, have
the necessity to expropriate all of the property from the residents living in the site
areas, causing the land tenants and 36 plaintiffs to be the one who is affected by the
government operation for public benefits, as well as, being the sacrificers for the great
of public interest. Thus, when citizens who are affected by this “Rashi-Sai” dam
construction, altogether with the 36 plaintiffs, they became the one who sacrifice their
personal interests for the public interests in order to let citizens to have the water in
use of agricultural and consumptions. Therefore, Government has a duty to take care
all of the 36 plaintiffs to get a right to claim for the compensation, the portage fee.
The damage fee of this lawsuit is becoming the lawsuit for public interest or having
the essential reasons, from section 52, paragraph 1 of the founding Act of Parliament.

5
As the people are being affected by the construction, the 36 plaintiffs who are willing
to sacrifice in good faith to exchange for water for agricultural activity and
consumption. The government has a duty and obligation to watchover 36 plaintiffs'
right to get compensation fee from damage one's health and mind, damage property as
well as transportation cost. This case is a specific case where the lawsuit is for the
greater good of the society or with imminent reason according to Administrative
Court Act B.E. 2542, article 52, section 1. Henceforth, the lawsuit will be presented
in court by the degree of the Administrative court
The case where the 36 plaintiffs have decided to sue the defendant to pay for the
compensation in sum of 12,669,334 bahts to compensate for disturbing and obstruct
plaintiffs’ right to make a living, this case is a specific case where the troubling
situations is create due to the misuse of rule and laws from Administrative Court Act
B.E. 2542, article 9, section 3. Therefore, according to article 51 of the same act, the
plaintiffs can sue the case to the court within 1 year when the plaintiff acknowledge
the wrongful act, and within 10 years when the wrongful act occurs.

6
If the plaintiffs submitted the case to Administrative court, it must be done within 1
year from the day they received the notice. However, they submitted the case by mail
on 6 October B.E.2552 which was beyond time-barred given in Section 51 of this act.
 Due to the appeal, the dam construction at Rasrisalai needed expropriation
from the owners of the lands in that area. These owners had sacrificed their private
interest to benefit of society as a whole who will enjoy having water usage in
agricultural activities, and daily consumption.

Considering the appeal, from Section 2 (2) of Administrative Procedural Act

B.E.2552 states that the administrative lawsuit which is submitted beyond timing
allowed can be accepted by Administrative court only if Administrative judge sees
that this case will benefit to the society as a whole or there is a necessary condition
observed by the judge or by other parties (the defender) of lawsuits. Accompanied
with Section 3 of the same act, it defines “the benefit of society as a whole” meaning
public benefit or benefit from providing public services or public utilities or other
benefit as a result of management or actions which encourage or support the
majorities or the majorities receive benefit from such management or actions.

According to the fact which had shown that the complainants brought the issue to the
court in order to ask for the compensations from the defendant, the court considered
that such requests were the benefits solely for the complainants themselves not for the
public. Furthermore, the fact did not indicate any necessity which caused them not to
be able to file the case within the prescription the law provided. Hence, this was the
case that the Administrative courts were not able to use judicial discretion to consider
the file when it exceeded the prescription. The appeal was not reasonable and the
Administrative Courts of First Instance stated to strike the case out of the case-list as
well as the Supreme Administrative Court.