GENERAL40745 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. For a judgment declaring the rights, duties and legal relations of the Plaintiff and Defendants with respect to the Mined Land Reclamation Act and the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 37. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 as if the same were incorpo- rated herein. 38. The Plaintiff has been adversely affected and aggrieved by a final agency action, namely the permit issued to Robco by the Board. 39. The Board's action in granting Robco's New Application without notice to 4 Plaintiff and without affording Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard was arbit~v Ao~ capricious. 40. The Board's action in granting Robco's New Application was a denial of Plain- tiffls statutory rights under the MLRA and the Colorado APA, 5 24-4-101 et seq. (here- after "APA"). 41. The Board's action in granting Robco's New Application violated Plaintiff's rights to procedural due process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article II, section 25 of the Colorado Constitution. 42. Denied the opportunity to comment upon the reclamation plan proposed by Robco, the City has been deprived of its right to comment upon or object to any omis- sions or inadequacies in the reclamation plan. 43. Without the opportunity to comment upon the reclamation proposals, the City, as owner of surface rights in the area covered by the permit and as an adjacent landowner, has been deprived of its rights and frustrated in its responsibility to protect City property from injury and preserve it for future use by the residents of the City. 44. The Board's action in granting Robco a permit without providing the City notice and an opportunity to be heard caused the Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court for the following relief: 1. That this Court, pursuant to 5 24-4-106(5) of the APA, enter an order enjoining the parties from taking any action to mine the Chieftain South Mine and post- poning the effective date of the Permit to avoid the irreparable injury that would other- wise result to the City and thereby preserve the City's constitutional and statutory rights to notice and hearing, pending judicial review of the Board's action. 2. That this Court, pursuant to 5 24-4-106(7) of the APA, enter an order finding that the Board's action in granting the Permit was arbitrary and capricious, a denial of statutory rights, contrary to constitutional rights, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, an abuse of discretion and otherwise contrary to law; and therefore, holding unlawful and setting aside the issuance of the Permit; compelling the Board to comply with all the -6-