Bangkok: Hunting down the shadowy figure in the industrial sector, fearing interference in the 5.9 billion baht mining case. Allegations have surfaced, suggesting attempts to meddle in the massive mining case, prompting Peerawas Somwong, deputy spokesperson for Kla Tham, to urge Top Warawut to investigate.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Peerawas Somwong, representing the opposition Kla Tham Party, questioned the integrity of the enforcement actions within the ongoing mining dispute between the Department of Primary Industries and Mines (DPIM) and TPI Polene Public Company Limited. The case involves the reclamation of approximately 47.9 million tons of minerals or a financial settlement of about 5.94 billion baht plus interest, as mandated by a court judgment. Mr. Peerawas raised concerns about potential undue influence on officials tasked with certifying the mineral reclamation process, questioning if proper procedures were bypassed.
Mr. Peerawas further highlighted the possibility of coercion directed at the Department of Industrial Works (DIW) to ease the enforcement of the court's decision. He called for transparency from the Minister of Industry regarding any political involvement or pressure exerted by company executives on government officials. The discrepancy between the 40 million baht reportedly enforced by the state and the court's multi-billion baht ruling has raised suspicions. Mr. Peerawas demanded clarity on the actual amount being enforced and questioned whether the enforcement of the court judgment is being deliberately minimized.
The case originates from a series of lawsuits related to quarrying activities conducted in Thap Kwang Subdistrict, Kaeng Khoi District, Saraburi Province. The primary contention lies in the removal of limestone and shale from areas deemed outside the approved mining concession zones, violating buffer zone restrictions, or breaching concession terms. The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) accuses TPIPL of utilizing substantial quantities of these materials for cement production.
The allegations against TPIPL are categorized into three areas:
1. Extraction beyond the concession limits.
2. Mining in prohibited buffer zones.
3. Breaching conditions within the concession area.
The DMR has sued TPIPL, demanding the return of the minerals and site restoration, or alternatively, financial compensation for the extracted resources and related damages. The stipulation that the company must first restore the land distinguishes this case from typical compensation claims.