“Gulf” sues “Mor Warong”, head of Thai Phakdi, seeking damages of 100 million.
On November 20, Dr. Worong Dejkitvikrom, the leader of the Thai Phakdi Party Post a message on facebook Said that he had received a summons for a civil case. Claimed for damages of 100 million baht, stated that
“Sue me for a hundred million. I was Mr. Thanathorn And the Progressive Party sued 24,062,475 baht per case, two cases were almost 50 million baht. Recently, they came to fight about the reclaiming of Thaicom satellites. just received a subpoena From Gulf Company sued me for 100 million baht. Thank you for all the problems. that gives me energy in the fight to change the country.”
In this regard, the aforementioned warrant is assigned to Dr. Worong Make an answer to answer the case to the court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the warrant. Appointment to determine the prosecution guidelines or take the prosecution testimony again on December 27, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
Previously, on Nov. 17, the Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the petition for consideration in the case of Dr. Worong Dejkitvikrom, asking the Constitutional Court to consider the decision under Article 213 of the Constitution that the Cabinet in the government. Miss Yingluck Shinawatra, 1st respondent, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology Respondent 2, Broadcasting Commission of Television and Telecommunications (NBTC), Respondent 3, Telecommunications Commission (TC), Respondent 4 and Thaicom Public Company Limited, Person Petitioned No. 5 to act contrary to or inconsistent with the 2007 Constitution, Section 190 and Section 305(1) and the 2017 Constitution, Section 60, Section 274. In the case of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 resolved to authorize Respondent 5 to bring the satellite network document (filing) at 120 degrees east to contract with Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Limited, a private company from Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China Contrary to or inconsistent with Article 190 of the Constitution 2007 or not? Or the International Organization, Article 178 does not provide for the general public to file a complaint with the Constitutional Court.
As for the case of the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent issued a Type Three Telecommunication Business License No. 3Kor/55/002, dated June 26, 2012, it is an act contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution 50 Section 305. (1) and the relevant legal provisions? Considered that the Constitution 50, Section 305(1), is a transitional chapter concerning the establishment of an organization to perform spectrum allocation duties. Which is not related to the actions of the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent, and the case of the Act on Organization to Assign Frequency Waves and Regulate Radio Broadcasting, Television and Telecommunications Businesses (No. 3) 2019, contrary to or inconsistent with the 2017 Constitution, Section 60, Section 274, or do not see By submitting a request to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the constitutional law specifically stipulated under Article 212 and Section 231(1) of the Constitution, the petitioner may not file such petition under Article 213 of the Constitution.
For the case of the announcement of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission on Criteria and Procedures for Licensing Rights to Access Satellite orbits in a Package on May 14, 2019, contrary to or inconsistent with Constitution 60 Section 60, or does not see that such announcement does not have the status of a law enacted by the legislature to be under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.