Laserfiche WebLink
<br />notice, permit, or regulation issued or promulgated under authority of this <br />article." 34-32-124(2). <br />Thus, the Complaint clearly states claims for relief which can be <br />granted. <br />2. In its Third Defense, Andesite states that the Complaint is untimely <br />as it was not filed within 20 days of the last date of published notice under <br />34-32-114. This argument is ludicrous in that Andesite attempts to assert <br />that since its notice to the landowner was defective, Andesite can assert a <br />lack of timeliness due to its failure of notice in its own defense. <br />Further, Section 114 refers to protests filed to permits which are <br />proceeding to approval. Here, the landowner is clearly petitioning for action <br />to be taken against an already issued permit. Clearly, Section 114 is <br />inapposite. <br />3. As its Fourth Defense, Andesite alleges that the Complaint is not <br />timely under Section 24-4-104(5). There is no time set under Section 104 for <br />a time in which to bring an action for revocation of a permit. Andesite's <br />contention is, therefore, an equitable one. As Andesite, by its failure of <br />notice to the landowner, ,denied the landowner his due process right to <br />participate in the permit proceedings, Andesite cannot now be heard to <br />complain when the landowner has exercised his earliest reasonable opportunity <br />to complain to the Board. <br />4. As its Fifth Defense, Andesite asserts tht there is no legal basis for <br />revocation of the permit. See Paragraph 1 above. Further, the Complaint <br />alleges three separate and distinct violations of .permit provisions for which <br />revocation can be authorized. <br />5. As its Sixth Defense, Andesite suggests that it will have to use the <br />landowner's water rights for recl amation. This does not constitute a defense <br />at all, but does suggest that Andesite may have to enter into an agreement <br />with the landowner to use water rights to fulfill its reclamation obligations. <br />6. As its Seventh and Eighth Defenses, Andesite interposes general <br />denials. The determination of these issues is a matter for the Board after a <br />heariny held pursuant to Section 24-4-105. <br />7. As its Ninth Defense, Andesite asserts that the issues raised are <br />moot as Andesite has filed a new application for a Mined Land Permit. Merely <br />filing the application does not render the Complaint moot, however. <br />First, Section 34-32-120 provides that no new permit can be issued to <br />an operator who is found to be in violation of the Act. <br />Second, Section 24-4-104(7) provides that the existing permit shall <br />-2- <br />