• 
• 

Published on November 30, 2007

The authority is now known as PTT.

A court statement said no ruling would be made today.

Presiding Judge Jaran Hatthakam last week said the court would deliver its ruling about the middle of next month, before the December 23 general election.

The Foundation for Consumers and the group of five filed a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court on August 31, 2006. That complaint named the cabinet, prime minister and energy minister at the time as respondents and sought a court order revoking the 2001 Royal Decree Determining the Powers, Rights and Benefits of PTT Plc and 2001 Royal Decree Determining the Time for Repealing Laws Governing the Petroleum Authority of Thailand. The two royal decrees were issued in regard to the corporatisation of the Petroleum Authority of Thailand into PTT Plc under the Corporatisation Act of 1999.

The prime minister and energy minister at the time were Thaksin Shinawatra and Viset Choopiban, respectively.

The court accepted the complaint on September 4, 2006, and later prescribed PTT to be the fourth respondent by way of interpleading.

PTT yesterday informed the Stock Exchange of Thailand of the legal processes in the hearing of the case, pursuant to the regulations prescribed by the 1990 General Assembly of the Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court Regarding Procedures in Trying Administrative Cases.

First, the judge in charge of the case will present a summary of the facts and issues of the case prepared by him to the judges' committee responsible for the trial and adjudication, of which he is a member. Then the claimants and the respondents will be given a chance to present verbal statements to support the written statements they have submitted to the court, starting with the claimants.

Next, the judge in charge of making the conclusion, or a judge who is not a member of the judges' committee and has been assigned to make the conclusion, will clarify verbally to the judge committee in support of his or her written statements of conclusions.

After completion of statements by the judge in charge of making the conclusion, the head of the judges' committee shall call a meeting for further adjudication of the case.

The statements by the judge in charge of making the conclusion shall have no binding effect. The only judgement that has a binding effect upon the parties to the case is the judgement of the judge in charge of the case and the judges' committee.

The Nation