Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra attracts the attention of cameramen and photographers as he arrives at Government House yesterday to chair a meeting of the organising committee for the 60th anniversary celebrations of His Majesty the King’s ac

The Supreme Admini-strative Court yesterday accepted a legal action from the Law Society of Thailand seeking to revoke the Cabinet resolution that allowed caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to take leave, on the grounds the move was illegal.

Nithithorn Lamlaua and Nakhon Chompuchat, representing the Law Society, are accusing the Cabinet of illegally issuing circulars dated April 7 to all government agencies announcing Thaksin was taking leave.

Their suit states that Thaksin's leave was not taken in accordance with regulations on leave for civil servants because it had no time limit and the reasons for him taking leave were not valid. Moreover, the Cabinet's resolution violated the Political Office Holders Act 1992.

They claim Cabinet had no right to endorse Thaksin's leave and pay his prime ministerial salary and remuneration, and it also violated a Royal Decree on salary payments for civil servants taking leave.

The Law Society representatives said Thaksin also broke the law by abandoning his responsibility and showing the intention he no longer wanted to carry out the role of prime minister. As well, his order appointing a caretaker to the prime minister's post also violated the law. Therefore, he has no right to receive any salary.

The suit asks the court to revoke the Cabinet's resolution and order the return of Thaksin's salary, allowances and other remuneration received after April 5.

It also asks the court to issue an injunction to have the Cabinet, the prime minister and his secretary-general suspended from duty until the court issues a ruling on the case.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Administrative Court yesterday upheld a decision by the Central Administrative Court in which it issued an injunction stopping the Election Commission (EC) from holding the third round election on April 29.

The court ruled the Central Administrative Court's injunction was justified on the grounds that the elections following the April 2 poll were illegal, holding them would be wasteful of state funds and the interests of voters should be protected.

The court dismissed the EC's argument that the Central Administrative Court had no right to hear the case because the right to configure polling stations was not an exercise of administrative authority.

The Central Administrative Court will today rule in another case brought against the EC's management of the April 2 election by Photipong and his group. This one claims the EC violated the constitutional right of voters to privacy while casting their ballots.