Bangkok: Supachai Jaismut, Chairman of the Legal Working Group of the Bhumjaithai Party, has initiated steps to scrutinize the actions of the Director-General of the Land Department concerning the controversial Khao Kradong case. The move involves setting up a committee to investigate the decision not to revoke a land title deed, a decision that has been upheld by the Administrative Court, yet continues to raise questions regarding the Land Department’s regulatory knowledge.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Supachai is questioning the order issued by Mr. Decha Isam Khaothong, Deputy Minister of the Interior, acting in place of the Minister of the Interior. The order involved the formation of an investigation committee under Section 61, Paragraph 2 of the Land Code. This decision was made in response to widespread media coverage casting doubt on the Director-General’s action of not revoking or amending the title deed, which some view as potentially unlawful.
The committee is chaired by the Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior and includes members such as the Director-General of the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, two special prosecutors, and representatives from the State Railway of Thailand. Mr. Supachai expressed concerns about the committee’s composition, questioning the relevance of some members’ expertise in land administrative orders. He pointed out that having a magistrate from the State Railway of Thailand, a litigant in the case, as a committee member was particularly unusual.
Mr. Supachai argued that the investigation order might be illegal and could seriously violate the rule of law. He emphasized that the Director-General of the Land Department had exercised due diligence under Section 61, considering evidence and committee opinions before deciding. Mr. Supachai criticized the invocation of media reports as a basis for investigation, suggesting it amounted to undue political or social pressure.
He further warned against attempts to interfere with the discretion of administrative officials, suggesting such actions could lead to a change in the previously established resolution. Mr. Supachai highlighted that the actions contradict principles outlined in the Public Administration Act of 1991 and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1996. He noted a climate of fear among civil servants within the Ministry of Interior following the Minister’s involvement.
Mr. Supachai also criticized the Deputy Minister of Interior for not adequately reviewing the case’s background in the Administrative Court. He noted that the court had previously ruled in favor of the Director-General’s actions, finding them neither negligent nor incorrect. Mr. Supachai warned that the committee’s formation could be perceived as an attempt to overturn the court’s decision, potentially signaling a hidden agenda.
Addressing the Deputy Minister, Mr. Supachai cautioned against succumbing to political pressures that could undermine the Ministry’s duty to serve the public. He warned of potential civil disobedience among civil servants if the rule of law is not prioritized. Mr. Supachai urged the Ministry of Interior to avoid actions that could lead to unlawful pressure on the Director-General, threatening legal repercussions and suggesting that such responsibilities should be taken up by the Minister of Interior himself to ensure accountability.