MEASURES FOR THE REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS: A STUDY OF FORM, PROCEDURE, OR METHOD UNDER THE ACT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEDURE B.E. 2542

Abstract

This research entitled “Measures for the Revocation of Administrative Orders: A Study of Form, Procedure, or Method under the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999)” aims to (1) examine legal principles concerning the validity of administrative orders in terms of form, procedure, or method, including the possibility of curing procedural defects; (2) analyze Administrative Court judgments regarding revocation under Section 9 paragraph one (1); and (3) propose criteria for determining the materiality of procedural defects. This qualitative study employed doctrinal legal research and case analysis of 25 purposively selected Administrative Court judgments. Data were analyzed through content analysis and comparative synthesis.

The findings reveal that the most frequent defect was the failure to provide the right to be heard (36%), followed by the failure to state reasons (24%), and defects concerning committee composition or statutory procedures (20% each). The Court revoked administrative orders in 60% of the cases. Four principal criteria were identified in determining materiality: (1) seriousness of the defect, (2) impact on affected rights, (3) effect on the substantive outcome, and (4) possibility of subsequent remedy. However, no unified and systematic standard currently exists, leading to some inconsistencies in judicial reasoning. The study proposes a structured materiality assessment framework to enhance legal certainty and strengthen the rule of law in administrative justice.