The question on everybody's mind is whether the Supreme Administrative Court will rule in favour of the petitioners, a group of consumer rights advocates, by ordering the de-listing of PTT's shares. This could have a devastating impact on the SET. The only consolation is that it is unlikely that PTT will be de-listed.

The consumer group that filed the petition wants to do to PTT what it successfully did to the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat), which the group blocked from privatising.

In March, the Supreme Administrative Court declared null and void two royal decrees initiated by the Thaksin government to partially privatise Egat. The court ruled in favour of 11 consumer-protection advocates who alleged that the Thaksin administration's handling of the privatisation process was ridden with irregularities. They alleged conflicts of interest involving government leaders and big businesses, which they said were acting in collusion to take over the state power company.

In the Egat case, the petitioners argued that the privatisation, if allowed to go ahead, could hurt consumers because it would grant corrupt politicians and prospective Egat shareholders unchecked power to reap profits at the expense of consumers. The plan to privatise Egat has since been shelved, though it could be revived by future governments.

Just as their action against Egat privatisation was legitimate, there is no denying that the petitioners have the right to make their case against the PTT privatisation. Here again, they allege massive irregularities. But the circumstances surrounding the two cases are as different as night and day. In Egat's case, the successful campaign was carried out before the IPO could take place. In the current case, PTT has already been listed and is widely traded in the stock market.

The Supreme Administrative Court will look into the case to determine whether the government, which steered the privatisation and listing of PTT, violated any laws or regulations governing privatisation. The court will consider whether the listing process infringed on the rights of citizens.

But these are not the only issues that the court should pay attention to. No matter what side the court comes down on in this case, it must give the utmost consideration to the potentially catastrophic consequences that its decision will represent for the Thai economy in general and the SET in particular. For example, a court order to reverse PTT's privatisation and de-list its shares from the stock market would require the government to buy back the company's shares at a staggering cost of at least Bt360 billion. At the same time, the SET would experience a near-collapse after being hit with the loss of as much as Bt600 billion in market capitalisation.

Investors of all kinds would lose confidence in Thailand and in the SET, causing long-term damage to the country's economic health.

The best approach would be for the court to distinguish between the general principle of privatisation and the listing of monopolistic state enterprises as a means to improve efficiency, promote fair competition, improve governance and limit the government's long-term liabilities on the one hand, and whatever wrongdoings crept into the process on the other. Anyone found to have received ill-gotten gains from the skewed allocation of PTT's IPO shares should be singled out for criminal prosecution and punished if found guilty. However, the possibility that certain individuals could be found to have done wrong does not mean that the entire effort to privatise the gas giant should be reversed.

In other words, the principle behind the drive to privatise certain state agencies is sound, only the implementation of the process was flawed. It would be unwise to throw out the baby with the bath water.