The Supreme Administrative Court Standing against the lawsuit against “Sarawut”, the former secretary of the Court of Justice Request to revoke the order of dismissal from government service pointing out that it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate
The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the verdict of the Administrative Court of First Instance, rejecting the indictment and dismissing the case from the case directory. In the case that Mr. Sarawut Benjakul, former secretary-general of the Office of the Judiciary Filed a lawsuit to revoke the order of the Office of the Court of Justice No. 404/2565 on the dismissal of court officials from government service dated April 22, 2022, which punished Mr. Sarawut from government service according to the resolution of the Judicial Committee of the Court of Justice. At the meeting No. 9/2565 dated April 18, 2022, due to serious disciplinary action in facilitating the bidding company to have the right to enter into a contract to improve the Phra Khanong Provincial Court building Minburi Provincial Court and Taling Chan Provincial Court
Yor 65, which Mr. Sarawut asked to revoke the said order and the Administrative Court of First Instance viewed that it was about the proceedings of the Judicial Commission of the Court of Justice under the law on judicial service. The case is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court under Section 9, paragraph two of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, 1999. The Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, 1999, and Article 35 and Article 37 of the Regulations of the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court on Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. The order of the Administrative Court of First Instance that rejected the indictment and was not obliged to submit its opinion to the Constitutional Court was therefore valid. Establishing the Administrative Court and Administrative Case Procedure, 1999, and Article 35 and Article 37 of the Rules of the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court on Administrative Court Procedure, 2000, to be considered in examining Mr. Sarawut’s indictment only. The order of the Administrative Court of First Instance that rejected the indictment and was not obliged to submit its opinion to the Constitutional Court was therefore valid. Establishing the Administrative Court and Administrative Case Procedure, 1999, and Article 35 and Article 37 of the Rules of the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court on Administrative Court Procedure, 2000, to be considered in examining Mr. Sarawut’s indictment only. The order of the Administrative Court of First Instance that rejected the indictment and was not obliged to submit its opinion to the Constitutional Court was therefore valid.
Mr. Sarawut appealed that the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the 2000 Judicial Administration Act are contrary to or inconsistent with Section 193 and Section 196 of the Constitution and the Administrative Court of First Instance has applied such provisions to The case therefore requested the Supreme Administrative Court to refer such arguments to the Constitutional Court for its decision. The inference of such provisions is merely an allegation to be used as a reason to support the court’s decision on the power of the Administrative Court to accept or not accept the complaint for consideration under Section 9, paragraph two (2) of the Act on Establishment. Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure 1999 only, the case is not the introduction of Section 22 (1) of the Act. The 2000 Administrative Regulations of the Court of Justice apply directly to the case and is considered a reason for the Administrative Court to refer its opinion to the State Constitution Court under Section 212 of the Constitution when the Administrative Court of First Instance has issued an order not accepting the indictment for consideration and disposing of the case. From the legal system and Mr. Sarawut filed an appeal against the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance rejecting the complaint for consideration. Cases that come to the Supreme Administrative Court, therefore, have issues to consider only whether this case is a case within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court under Section 9 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, 1999 or not. In addition to the consideration of Mr. Sarawut’s appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court did not apply the provisions of Section 22 of the 2000 Judicial Administration Act to apply to this case as well, so the case was not subject to Section 212 of the Constitution at the Court. opinion must be submitted to the Constitutional Court for consideration in any way) .
Source: Thai News Agency