Supreme Administrative Court Not accepting the request for a new trial of the juristic person ‘Ashton Asoke’, pointing out that he is not a stakeholder.

The Supreme Administrative Court has refused to accept the complaint requesting a new trial of the Ashton Asoke condominium juristic person, pointing out that it is not a stakeholder. Indicates that if ownership registration rights are seen to be affected, you can file a lawsuit with the court.

April 10, 2024 – The Supreme Administrative Court ordered to uphold the order of the Central Administrative Court not to accept the request to reconsider the case of the Ashton Asoke condominium juristic person.

The said case is the Ashton Asoke condominium juristic person. Filed a complaint with the Administrative Court After the Supreme Administrative Court issued a judgment revoking the receipt of the notice of intent to construct, modify, demolish or move the building. or change the use of the building in the Ashton Asoke condominium project with retroactive effect to the date of issuance of the said letter dated February 23, 2015, claiming that the said absolute judgment has an impact on the registration of the condominium. Chatan Asoke, condominium ownership document and registration of rights and legal acts regarding the condominium unit Make the Ashton Condominium Juristic Person and the co-owner cannot enter and maintain common property and personal property. And the demolition of the condominium will cause serious damage to the Ashton Condominium juristic person and the co-owners of the Ashton Asoke condominium, so severe that it is difficult to recover. And the damages that will occur as a result of such a judgment will be more extensive compared to the benefits that the Anti-Global Warming Association that filed the lawsuit will receive.

As for the reason for the Supreme Administrative Court’s order, it is stated that the Supreme Administrative Court issued Order No. 351/2567 ruling that the Administrative Court of First Instance ruled that the decision to revoke the receipt of the notice of intent to construct and construction notification receipt at the Director of the Public Works Bureau Bangkok Issued to Ananda Company Development Two Co., Ltd. has the legal effect only that Ananda Company Construct and modify condominiums in the Ashton Asoke project without permission from local officials only. This is a matter for local officials to consider in further implementing the Building Control Act of 1979, but it does not result in the revocation of the condominium’s registration. Ownership document in the condominium and the registration of the condominium juristic person of the Ashton Asoke project in any way, if the facts later appear that The local official has used the power to take legal action against the Ashton Asoke project building. This does not deprive the Ashton Condominium juristic person and the co-owner of the right to continue exercising their rights in court.

In this case, it cannot be considered that The Administrative Court’s judgment in this case affects the rights and duties of the Ashton Condominium Juristic Person. and co-owners of condominiums Ashton Asoke Project. Therefore, the Ashton Condominium Juristic Person is not a third party who is interested in or may be affected by the outcome of this case and has the right to submit a request to the Administrative Court to consider the case or issue an order deciding the administrative case. New ones can be made according to Section 75, paragraph one of the Act Establishing the Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure, 1999.

When you are not an outsider Those who are interested or may be affected by the outcome of this case Therefore, it is not necessary to determine that Is there a reason for the Administrative Court to reconsider this case according to Section 75 paragraph one (1) to (4) following the appeal of the Ashton Condominium Juristic Person? Because it does not change the outcome of the case. Therefore, there was an order confirming the order of the Central Administrative Court that did not accept the request of the Ashton Condominium Juristic Person for consideration.