J Cunningham

A Development of this size requires both a Valid Building Permit from the Tesseban and an Environment Impact Report from the Provincial Environmental Council. Those are both local government offices. If there was "Slight of Hand" and/or a "Wink and Nod", it happened locally. The Thai Administrative Court only looks at cases involving Thai Government Agencies. After an exhaustive 6 year investigation the Court placed all blame on the Phuket Tesseban for issuing the building permit illegally and then failing to halt the construction when the developer built outside the confines of the same illegal building permit. It was ruled that the Environmental Council acted on indirect information and was therefore not "officially" negligent. In addition to building "Right on the Water"...illegal, dangerous... there were a large number of other infractions...1) Buildings to close together...illegal spacing, 2) Building outside the property boundaries, 3) Illegal construction density...to many building, to little free space, 4) Buildings exceeding allowable height requirements...etc...etc... none of these infractions were addressed by the Tesseban.  And, of course, while the "Wheels of Justice" were slowly turning and the court was sending a convoy of Coastal Marine, Architectural and Engineering experts to investigate the property.....the developer continued to sell units. And we can all be sure the Developer and their Sales people were being absolutely transparent with all their potential buyers...."Court Case Pending".....Purchase at your own Risk.......Right? I mean, that would be the honest thing to do.

So the Administrative Court of Thailand issues and publicly posts a ruling, after a 6 year investigation, and then the court is required to disseminate said ruling and to issue exact instruction to all parties involved ....So that is who exactly, the Mayor, the Tesseban, the Wrecking Ball operator....Truck Drivers?

What I read was this (Thai to English sorta of translates like so)..... . . Therefore, the “Tesseban” has the duty to issue the suspension of relevant actions and to prohibit anyone from using or entering any part of the building, and issue an order that the owner of the building to correct such fault or to remove the building depending on the case in order to observe the stipulations under Article 40, 41, or 42 of the Building Control Act 1979 (B.E. 2522) and other relevant law. However, as it appears that the “Tesseban” did not act on their duty to enforce the owner of the building to correct their building to observe the law. In this case, it can be held by the context and action of the first accused that the first accused had indeed neglect their duty by law in relevant to Building Control Act and other law under Article 9 paragraph 1 (2) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).
 The court is of the decision that the “Tesseban” shall observe their duty under Building Control Act 1979 (B.E. 2522) and other relevant laws within 90 days from the last judgment . . .

Lets get on with this....like 6 years wasn't long enough to wait for an illegal development to be knocked down.