1979-06-22_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

judicial review. For example, in State Board of Cosmetology v. District Court, 187 Colo. 175, 530 P.2d 1278 (1974) , the Colorado Supreme Court observed that judicial review of administrative action is available only after exhaustion of administrative remedies and final agency action. " State Board of Cosmetology v. District Court, supra, 530 P. 2d 1278, 1280, (emphasis supplied) . Imposition of both finality and exhaustion as pre- requisites for review is a reflection of the fact that final agency action may result without exhaustion of administrative remedies. That is, agency action may become "final" precisely because administrative remedies were not exhausted. Inaction on the part of an objector to a proposed administrative action will usually result in the proposed action becoming final. L ti This is exactly the situation in this case where the Plain- tiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies by requesting an adjudicatory hearing resulted in final Board action by way of permit issuance. The exhaustion doctrine is specifically directed at such inaction, regardless of whether the inaction results in final agency action. This is evident from several Colorado cases where judicial review was denied for failure to exhaust when such failure had directly resulted in final agency action. For example, in Hannum v. Hillyard, 130 Colo. 37 , 278 P. 2d 1015 (1955) , the building inspector for the City and County of Denver issued a building permit for the construction of a garage, thereby taking final agency action. Notwithstanding the finality of the building inspector' s action, the complaint of objectors to the building permit was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Hannum v. Hillyard, supra, 278 P. 2d 1015, 1017 . See also, Herron v. City of Denver, 131 Colo. 501, 283 P. 2d 647, 650-651 (.1955) . [No judicial review 4 a' final action by way of building permit rejection due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies] . -4-