Central Administrative Court Appointment to read order on 30 Oct. Case of Consumer Foundation suing NBTC for "merger of TRUE-DTAC"
Central Administrative Court Appointment to read the Supreme Administrative Court's order on October 30, 2566, caseConsumer FoundationSue the Broadcasting Commission National Television and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) to merge TRUE-DTAC
The Central Administrative Court scheduled to read the Supreme Administrative Court's order on October 30, 2566 at 11.00:443 a.m. in Black Case No. 2566/544 and Red Case No. 2566/1 between the Foundation for Consumers (the plaintiff) and the Broadcasting Commission. National Television and Telecommunications Business No. 2 and two people (the defendants) in a dispute regarding an administrative agency or government official acting unlawfully. (Request to appeal the order not accepting the complaint for consideration)
In this case, the plaintiff sued that Broadcasting Commission Television business and the National Telecommunications Commission No. 1 and 2 people (the defendants) resolved in a special meeting No. 5/2565 on October 20, 2565 to acknowledge the business merger between True Corporation PCL. (TRUE) and Total Access Communication Public Company Limited (DTAC) by a majority vote that Such business combination does not constitute the ownership of businesses in the same type of service, which the plaintiff views as an inappropriate exercise of discretion. causing unfairness in telecommunications competition Therefore brought the case to court.
The Administrative Court of First Instance ordered not to accept the complaint for consideration. and to have the case removed from the registry Because the court considered and found that The plaintiff sued to ask the court to revoke the resolution of the NBTC Board at the special meeting No. 5/2565 on October 20, 2565. The plaintiff should have been aware of the existence of the disputed resolution. Since October 20, 2, the day the NBTC Board held a meeting and voted and the NBTC Office (the second respondent) published the meeting results generally to the public. and also posted an announcement on the website of the second defendant.
And the plaintiff learned that on November 10, 2565, the Consumer Organization Council filed a lawsuit against the committee. NBTC (defendant no. 1) to the Central Administrative Court To request revocation of the resolution on the business merger between TRUE and DTAC, therefore, the plaintiff should know or have known of the existence of the dispute resolution at the latest on November 10, 2565, not December 10. 2565, which is the date the plaintiff claims to have visited the websites of the two defendants. Therefore it was found that the minutes of the meeting had been published.
The fact that the plaintiff brought the case to the court on March 8, 2566 was therefore filed after the time period for filing a lawsuit had expired in accordance with Section 49 of the Act Establishing the Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542, when this case was not Cases related to the protection of public interest or the status of a person may file a lawsuit at any time in accordance with Section 52, paragraph one, of the said Act.
This case will have consequences related to the use of powers and duties by the two defendants in regulating telecommunications business operators. And the business merger No. 71/2566 between TRUE and DTAC only does not directly affect the public or truly benefit the public in any way. Nor did any other necessary cause appear to be an obstacle preventing the plaintiff from filing the complaint within the filing period specified by law.
The Court is therefore unable to exercise its discretion to accept the complaint in this case for consideration in accordance with Section 52, paragraph two of the Act Establishing the Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542, together with Section 30, paragraph two, of the regulations of the General Assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court. Concerning Administrative Case Procedure, B.E. 2543, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the Administrative Court of First Instance order to the Supreme Administrative Court.
Read related news:
