The Administrative Court referred the plaintiff, who was the local administrative, Pathum Thani municipal, claimed that article 117 and 118 of the Navigation in the Thai Waters Act B.E.2456 (1913) were contrary with article 249 and 250 of the Constitution of B.E. 2560 (2017). The fact was the plaintiff built the construction of the road straddling project then submitted the approval to the Harbour Master (now the Marine Department), but the Harbour Master rejected the submission and ordered to demolish the construction. The plaintiff appealed to the Director of the Harbour Master, but the Director dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the plaintiff challenged the source of law, article 117 and 118 of the Navigation in the Thai Waters Act that the construction causes encroachment over the waterway must obtain permission from the Harbour Master. Both provisions were inconsistent with article .249 and 250 of the Constitution that local administration shall provide public service. Therefore, the local administration had their authority undertake article 117 of the Navigation in the Thai Waters Act, instead of the Harbour Master.
The Constitutional Court ruled based on article 212 paragraph 1 that a party in the case raised a question of the law was contrary or inconsistent with the Constitution, and that issue has not yet been a decision of the Court. Due to article 249 and 250 address that the local administration has the duties and powers to provide public service as provided by law. The Navigation in the Thai Waters Act has authorized the local administration to encroach the waterway, such as the pipeline and breakwater, but did not authorize the road straddling. Subsequently, the local administration was required to obtain permission from the Harbour Master so that the projects holistically considered the communication and the people utilized in the waterway. Therefore, the Court ruled that article 117 of the Navigation in the Thai Waters Act was not contrary with article 249 and 250 of the Constitution