Laserfiche WebLink
<br />permits if it is determined, at a hearing by the MLRB, that the <br />permit holder was in violation of the permit. The MLRB may issue <br />cease and desist orders to suspend operations under the permits, <br />and should the permit holder fail to comply with the cease and <br />desist order, the Board may seek to obtain an injunction to enjoin <br />further operations. Even though the permit holder may seek <br />judicial review of either the Board's decision to suspend, modify <br />or revoke the permit, or the Board's issuance of a cease and desist <br />order, the jurisdiction of the MLRB concerning these matters will <br />not be affected unless the permit holder successfully obtains a <br />stay pursuant to §24-4-106(5). In order to obtain a judicial stay, <br />the applicant must establish that a stay is necessary "to preserve <br />the rights of the parties pending conclusion of the review <br />proceedings." §24-4-106(5). A court may not automatically issue <br />a stay of the Board's orders without an adequate .showing of <br />necessity by the permit holder, since without a showing of <br />necessity a stay would violate the prohibition against judicial <br />interference with an agency's performance of its statutory <br />authority. <br />Notwithstanding the filing of an action for judicial <br />review of the issuance of a permit, the operator oi" the mine <br />similarly retains numerous rights and obligations with respect to <br />the permit. These include the right to terminate the permit and <br />cease operations, transfer the permit to another operator, convert <br />limited impact or special operations permits, or to maker technical <br />revisions to the permit. See Rule 1.6, 1.7, 1.9 and 1.10 of the <br />Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Miined Land <br />Reclamation Board, May 1977. As described above, +absent the <br />issuance of a judicial stay, there is nothing within the provisions <br />of the Colorado's MLRA or APA, or in the rules and regulations of <br />the MLRB which prohibit the Board from taking action with respect <br />to these rights. Since the MLRA, APA and MLRB rules and <br />regulations allow for the actions listed above to be taken with <br />respect to an existing permit, and since amendments are allowed <br />under Rule 1.8 of the MLRB rules, it follows that the Board <br />exercises continuing jurisdiction over an existing permi~~, to amend <br />the same, notwithstanding the fact that such permit is the subject <br />of a judicial review proceeding, as long as the amendment does not <br />modify or alter the original order so as to affect the i:csues being <br />reviewed. Any more restricted interpretation of the continuing <br />jurisdiction of the MLRB over existing reclamation permits would <br />render §24-4-106(5) of the APA meaningless by in effect creating <br />a judicial stay in every case in which a permit was subject to <br />judicial review and would interfere with the Board's performance <br />of its statutory duties. <br />B. The Continuing Jurisdiction Or Authority Of An Agency To <br />Perform Its Statutory Functions Is Limited Only When <br />Agency Action Will Directly Conflict Witt. Judicial <br />Review. <br />4 <br />