BackThe citizen in San Pa Tong Subdistrict Municipality, Chiangmai, had filed a complaint and requested the ombudsman to look into the performance of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission (NBTC), in regards to allowing a private company to install a cellular tower in a community area. They believed that the signal transmitted from the tower might be hazardous to their health and that of their community. Thus, the investigator did fact finding into the operation, which causes grievance to the complainant and those in the community. After fact finding, it is found that
- The licensing for the construction of radiocommunication stations by the San Pa Tong Subdistrict Municipality is within the duties and authority of local officials as per the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522 and amendments. The San Pa Tong Subdistrict Municipality executed their duties legally and in accordance with the statutory procedural requirements. From the facts and evidences that have manifested, it cannot yet be considered that the San Pa Tong Subdistrict Municipality has acted unlawfully or acted beyond their legal duties and power which leads to grievance or unfairness to the complainant. Thus, the issues within this complaint do not fall under Section 22 (2) of the Notification of the Ombudsmen, B.E. 2562 (2019) which prescribes the matters that the Ombudsman is prohibited from accepting for consideration under section 37 (8) of the Organic Act of the Ombudsmen B.E. 2560 (2017).
- In regards to the licensing for the construction of radiocommunication stations by NBTC to DTAC Trinet Company, Limited. NBTC acted in accordance to their legal duties and authority per Proclamation on NBTC in regards to forging an understanding with the people in the vicinity of a radiocommunication station, as well as related health measures and protocols. From the facts and evidences that have manifested, it cannot yet be considered that NBTC has acted unlawfully or acted beyond their legal duties and power which leads to grievance or unfairness to the complainant. Thus, the issues within this complaint do not fall under Section 22 (2) of the Notification of the Ombudsmen, B.E. 2562 (2019) which prescribes the matters that the Ombudsman is prohibited from accepting for consideration under section 37 (8) of the Organic Act of the Ombudsmen B.E. 2560 (2017).
With the aforementioned situation, the Ombudsman decides to cease the consideration of this complaint, according to Section 37 (2) of the Organic Act on Ombudsmen B.E. 2560 (2017). However, after NBTC has granted the license to install a radiocommunication station to DTAC Trinet Company, Limited, it appeared during the meeting that discussed complaints, on 9 March 2021, at San Pa Tong District Meeting Room, San Pa Tong District, Chiangmai; that in publicizing and advertising to the people who resided within 500 meters radius of the radiocommunication station, the representatives from DTAC Trinet Company Limited distributed leaflets that did not reach the targeted audience.
This led to the people being unaware of the issue, in contradiction to the guidelines to forging an understanding with the people in regards to the installation of a radiocommunication station according to the Proclamation on Telecommunication Commission, Proclamation on NBTC. Therefore, in order to accommodate this complaint, the Ombudsman recommended NBTC to reconsider granting DTAC Trinet a license to install a radiocommunication station at the San Pa Tong post office, San Pa Tong District, Chiangmai. This is in order to determine if the granting of a license followed the rule, regulation, proclamation and order set by NBTC. In the case that the procedure had not been correctly followed, NBTC is requested to carry on in accordance to their legal duties and authority, and report their actions to the Office of the Ombudsman.
It is obvious that the recommendation of the ombudsman will have made an impact on the case. This will undoubtedly make NBTC, an organization with nationwide jurisdiction, to be more aware of their activities and be mindful of their legal duties and authority. In this circumstance, not only did the ombudsman help address an individual complaint, but he was also able to make a major governmental organization more careful of their future actions.
Source: Office of the Ombudsman of Thailand
