The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) will oppose a court order to rename a section of Sutthisan Road to Inthamara, as it was once called.
The Inthamara family are poised to sue the BMA for dereliction of duty and disobeying a Supreme Administrative Court ruling which ordered the name of the road to be changed.
The name of the road has been a headache for the BMA and the Inthamara family for more than a decade. Both sides have been fighting over the name.
Previously, the road running from Saphan Khwai to Lat Phrao was split, with the first section from Saphan Khwai Intersection to Sutthisan Intersection called Sutthisan, and the rest Inthamara.
Both the names Sutthisan and Inthamara are linked to people who contributed to the development of the road. Sutthisan is the name of Phra Sutthisan Winitchai, whose family donated part of the land to police for road cutting and property development to build a police residential living compound in 1956. Inthamara is the family name of the late Pol Col Toh Inthamara, who was responsible for setting out the path of the road.
Traditionally, streets and roads in Thailand are named after a landlord or geographical feature. The Supreme Administrative Court took this into account in its ruling saying the Inthamara name should be reinstated for the sake of historical accuracy.
For many years after 1960, the Royal Thai Police and the BMA officially recognised the use of both names for the road.
However in 2004, the BMA ordered that the entire road be called Sutthisan in line with its policy to standardise names of roads and sois throughout the city.
The BMA argued that Sutthisan was more widely known and changed the name of the connecting section from Ratchadaphisek to Lat Phrao to Sutthisan.
The Inthamara Road signage, in honour of the man who, half a century ago, helped develop it, no longer exists.
The move prompted the Inthamara family to petition the Administrative Court to rule against the family name being dropped. The Inthamara family won the case. On July 20, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the BMA to reinstate the road name within 180 days.
The BMA is adamant it will fight the case. According to a source, the BMA conducted a poll to seek opinions from people living along the road in Phaya Thai and Din Daeng districts. The result, according to the source, was that 70% of respondents want the road to be called Sutthisan.
"Respondents explained that they have got used to the name and they do not want to waste time changing names in official documents and mailing addresses, while another 30% refused to give comments. They just said they simply want one name for one road," the source said.
The BMA used immense resources to conduct the survey. Officials from Phaya Thai district were sent to knock on doors asking opinions from 1,000 householders, or 50% of residents in the district living along its section of the road. In Din Daeng district, officials needed to knock on the doors of 5,000 houses.
"These officials knocked on doors and asked for the name of the house owner and to verify their ID cards. Respondents were asked two questions -- what name they want for the road. and if they were happy with the names of adjoining sois," the source said.
All respondents' answers were submitted to the BMA's city clerk Patarut Dardarananda and submitted to Bangkok governor Aswin Kwanmuang for official acknowledgement.
The fight over the name of the road is expected to heat up again. Jan 8 is the 180-day deadline for the BMA to comply with the Supreme Administrative Court order to rename the road and adjacent sois. The BMA plans to send the results of its opinion poll to the Supreme Administrative Court on Monday and await a decision.
The Inthamara family, however, is prepared to strike back. Krisada Inthamara, who has represented the family in its legal battle, said he will send a letter before Jan 8 to the Supreme Administrative Court to complain that the BMA is "distorting the facts" and disobeying the court order.
If the BMA doesn't change the road name by Jan 8, the family will sue the BMA for "dereliction of duty" for refusing to obey the Supreme Administrative Court order.
"I have already contacted the Central Administrative Court to ask it court to demand the BMA explain why it needed to conduct a public survey on the name of the road," Mr Krisada said.
However, the Central Administrative Court on Nov 25 said an explanation wasn't necessary, which suggests that the legal battle could be far from over.
