Page:พรบ วิ ปกครอง ๒๕๓๙ (๐๑).pdf/15

 in respect of which the recipient of the administrative order shall be deemed to be in bad faith from whatever time he becomes aware of the unlawfulness of the administrative order or should have become aware thereof if without serious negligence. In addition, in the case under paragraph 3, he must be liable for the return of the obtained money, property, or benefit in full.

An administrative order which is unlawful and is not subject to section 51 may be revoked in whole or in part, but the person affected by the said administrative order has the right to be compensated for the damage suffered as a result of the honest belief in the continued existence of the administrative order and the dispositions of section 51, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, and paragraph 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis. However, he must request the compensation within one hundred and eighty days from the time he is notified of the revocation.

The compensation for the damage according to this section must not be higher than the benefit he would have received had the said administrative order not been revoked.

A lawful administrative order which is not beneficial to its recipient may be revoked in whole or in part, either with immediate effect from the time of the revocation or with effect for the future up to any time as may be designated, save where an administrative order of like content would have to be made again or where revocation is not allowable for other reasons. In this respect, regard shall be had to the interest of a third party also.

A lawful administrative order which is beneficial to its recipient may be revoked in whole or in part, either with immediate effect from the time of the revocation or with effect for the future up to any time as may be designated, in the following cases only:

the revocation is allowed by the law or the right of revocation is reserved in the administrative order itself;

the administrative order contains a requirement with which the beneficiary had to comply but failed to comply within the time limit designated;

there is a change in the facts and circumstances which, had they existed at the time of making the administrative order, would have prevented the authority from making the administrative order, and failure to revoke the order would damage the public interest;

there is a change in a provision of law which, had it existed at the time of making the administrative order, would have prevented the authority from making the administrative order; however, revocation can be made in this case only in so far as the bene-