Administrative Court Rejects NBTC Chief's Petition Over Disqualification Ruling
The Central Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Dr. Soran Buranapongchai seeking to revoke the NBTC selection committee's disqualification ruling.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- The Central Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Dr. Soran Buranapongchai.
- The petition sought to revoke Selection Committee Ruling No. 1/2569 regarding his qualification.
- The court ruled that the plaintiff does not yet have legal standing to bring the case at this stage.
- The lawsuit was rejected and removed from the court docket without reviewing interim injunction requests.
On August 8, reports emerged regarding a major legal development involving the leadership dispute at Thailand's broadcasting and telecommunications regulatory body, as the Central Administrative Court issued an order dismissing a lawsuit filed on August 3 by Dr. Soran Buranapongchai, Chairman of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).
The legal action was initiated to request a judgment or order revoking Ruling No. 1/2569 issued by the NBTC Selection Committee on July 21, 2026, which concluded that Dr. Soran possessed prohibited characteristics and lacked the qualifications to serve as NBTC Chairman from the outset.
Additionally, the plaintiff requested that the revocation be made retroactive to the date of the ruling, effectively treating the decision as if it had never occurred, along with petitions for preliminary injunctions prior to the court's judgment.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
The court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit highlights the precise procedural framework and statutory limits governing independent regulatory bodies under the Frequency Allocation Act. Because the removal process requires formal steps including royal endorsement procedures, the court determined that the legal thresholds for direct injury and standing have not yet been met at this preliminary stage of the administrative process.
The court based its dismissal on specific legal provisions and facts regarding the statutory framework:
- Section 18 of the 2010 Frequency Allocation Act requires individuals with prohibited traits to submit evidence of resignation to the Senate President before royal appointment.
- The selection committee ruled that Dr. Soran met prohibited conditions under Section 18 combined with Section 8(2) after his royal appointment took effect on April 13, 2022.
- Removal from office under Section 20 paragraph 1(5) and paragraph 2 requires submitting the matter for royal command to vacate the position.
- Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff cannot yet be considered directly injured or harmed by the defendant's action under Section 42 paragraph 1 of the Establishment of Administrative Courts Act.
As a result, the court declined to accept the petition for trial and found no necessity to evaluate requests for preliminary relief, ordering the case to be dismissed and struck from the court docket.
Source: Matichon Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment