Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The importance to the legislature of prompt review of agency <br />rulings, or alternatively, the finality of such rulings, is <br />underscored by noting that is 1979 the legislature amended the <br />quoted statute to reduce the time within which judicial challenges <br />may be made from sixty days to thirty days. That Adams County <br />had knowledge, at all times pertinent, of the actions or pro- <br />posed actions of the State of Colorado in issuing a mining per- <br />mit to plaintiff is not denied. C.R.S. 1973, $24-4-106 provides <br />additionally that: <br />"(1) In order to assure a plain, simple, and <br />prompt judicial remedy to persons or parties <br />adversely affected or aggrieved by agency actions, <br />the provisions of this section shall be appli- <br />cable." <br />"(2) Final agency action under this or any <br />other law shall be subject to judicial review <br />as provided in this section...." <br />Time is jurisdictional. Failure to timely perfect a judicial <br />review action divests the court of jurisdiction to hear the case. <br />See Greyhound Racing Association v. Racing Comm., 41 Colo. App. <br />319, 589 P.2d 70 (1978); Westlund v. Carter 193 Colo. 129, 565 <br />P.2d 920 (1977). <br />III. <br />The issuance of the permit in question was duly and regularly <br />approved by the State of Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />in accordance with applicable law and may be revoked only by the <br />Board upon a finding of one or more of the circumstances speci- <br />fied in C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-124(6), the existence of none of <br />which has been alleged by Adams County. <br />IV. <br />Adams County is perfectly capable of enforcing its zoning <br />resolutions and is in the third-party complaint improperly seek- <br />ing to use the State of Colorado to enforce Adams County zoning <br />resolutions. <br />