Pakorn Clarifies 11 Administrative Law Points on Orders
Pakorn clarifies 11 points on administrative law, stating orders take effect immediately upon notice and lawsuits do not stay enforcement without a court order.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Administrative orders take effect immediately upon notice under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Appeals or lawsuits do not stay enforcement unless ordered by authorities or the court.
- Orders remain valid until the court or competent authority orders a stay of execution.
- If the court rules the order unlawful, it will be revoked and remedies provided.
Pakorn has released a clarification consisting of 11 administrative law points regarding the legal effects and procedures of administrative orders. He stated that an administrative order becomes legally binding against a person as soon as they receive notice, in accordance with Section 42 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which directly creates, alters, or terminates the rights of those subjected to the order.
In practical terms, once an administrative order is received, subsequent legal mechanisms take effect immediately. For instance, an order dismissing someone from civil service requires the immediate suspension of salary, compensation, and welfare from that exact date, while an order to close an entertainment venue results in an immediate halt to business operations.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
Regarding contesting an administrative order, if the law does not specify otherwise, individuals must first appeal under administrative procedure laws or to relevant agencies before filing a lawsuit in the Administrative Court, following the exhaustion of administrative remedy principle. If the law specifies a direct route, such as filing straight to the Administrative Court, that procedure must be followed.
The principle of the "presumption of validity" of administrative orders is fundamental to public law, ensuring that state administration continues efficiently without disruption. The law presumes official orders are lawful until proven otherwise by a final court judgment, meaning filing a lawsuit alone does not suspend an active administrative directive.
Under Rule 69 of the Administrative Court Procedure, filing a lawsuit to revoke an administrative order does not cause a stay of execution unless the Administrative Court or the appellate authority issues a specific order to stay it. Therefore, the order remains fully enforceable until a suspension is officially granted, meaning a lawsuit does not instantly invalidate the directive.
If the Administrative Court later delivers a final ruling that an administrative order is unlawful, the order must be revoked and compensation or remedies provided to the affected party. Conversely, if the court upholds the order as lawful, the directive remains valid retroactively from the date the individual originally received notice.
Source: Matichon Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment