คดีปกครองเกี่ยวกับการดำเนินงานคุ้มครองผู้บริโภคด้านสาธารณสุขกรณีสินบนนำจับ

Abstract

Abstract

            The Food Act B.E. 2522 stipulates that food labeling must comply with legal standards, and violations constitute a legal offense. Under the Regulation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Criteria, Procedures, and Conditions for the Payment of Bounties, Rewards, and Operational Expenses B.E. 2548, individuals who provide information or evidence that leads to a successful enforcement action are entitled to receive a bounty from the fine imposed on the offender. Currently, public members may file complaints with the FDA or Provincial Public Health Offices, prompting official inspections.
A legal issue arises when authorities conduct inspections but find no violations, resulting in the complainant being ineligible for a bounty. Consequently, some complainants have brought their cases before the Administrative Court.

            An analysis of 111 such cases submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court—each appealing the dismissal orders of the lower Administrative Court—revealed the following outcomes: 83 cases were dismissed, 18 were referred to the civil courts under Section 10 of the Act on the Determination of Jurisdiction between Courts B.E. 2542, and 10 were accepted for consideration by reversing the lower court’s dismissal orders. The accepted cases were categorized into two groups:

1. Disputes concerning administrative agencies or officials failing to perform legal duties or performing them unreasonably late, as outlined in Section 9(1) (2) of the Act on the Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Procedure B.E. 2542.
2. Disputes in which plaintiffs requested that the defendants jointly or severally pay the bounty for specific products, following the regulations, without deducting transfer fees, and sought compensation where the fine could not be collected due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. These were considered disputes concerning tortious or other legal liabilities of administrative agencies or officials under Section 9(1)(3) of the same Act.

                The legal conclusions derived from the analysis are as follows:

1. If an agency determines that no violation occurred and thus imposes no fine, but the complainant contests this finding, the matter is considered part of criminal justice procedures and falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court.
2. If an agency determines that a violation occurred and imposes a fine, but the complainant challenges the calculation of the bounty—excluding matters of discretion in determining the offense—this constitutes an administrative act and falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court.
3. When the FDA or Provincial Public Health Offices delay inspections, they are legally required to act under the Royal Decree on Good Governance B.E. 2546. If they fail to respond after receiving a complaint, the complainant may bring the case to the Administrative Court.
4. Requests for inspection outcomes or related documents are governed by the Official Information Act B.E. 2540. Agencies are obligated to disclose such information unless exceptions apply. In a dispute, the complainant may appeal to the Official Information Commission, whose decision is binding.
5. If the complainant alleges damage caused by the agency’s failure to impose a fine, the matter falls within civil jurisdiction. The agency may request representation from the public prosecutor.
6. In cases where officials are sued for tortious acts, liability may be assigned only to the state if the officials acted within their legal authority and without intent or gross negligence, under the Tort Liability of Officials Act B.E. 2539.

            This study clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries and legal principles relevant to administrative complaints concerning bounty payments and highlights the procedural responsibilities of agencies under Thai administrative law.