PERMFILE130943

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 4/26/1989
• Doc Name: CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

26. CES was an objecting party at the MLRB heacings as
required by § 24-4-106(4), C.R.S. and has been adversely affected
and aggrieved by the MLRB's improper approval of Battle
Mountain's permit number M-88-112.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Procedural Due Process -- Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution and Article II,
Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution)
27. CES realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 21.
28. CES has been deprived of procedural due process
protections of fundamental fairness under color of state law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article II, Section 25 of the Constitution of
Colorado in that:
(a) According to the Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Act and § 24-4-104(2), C.R.S., the MLRB may only
grant a mining and reclamation permit solely upon the stated
criteria, terms, and purposes of the MLRB's statutes, rules and
regulations;
(b) Battle Mountain's Application does not satisfy
the criteria of the MLRB as stated in its promulgated rules and
regulations and the Act; and
(c) MLRB disregarded its own rules and enabling
statutes when it approved Battle Mountain's incomplete
Application on March 23, 1989.
29. The lack of ascertainable standards and criteria as
specified in paragraph 26 have allowed the MLRB to make
inconsistent and arbitrary decisions which have no relationship
to the Legislature's intent in enacting § 32-34-101, et seq.,
C.R.S.
30. As a result of the MLRB's unconstitutional conduct,
CES was harmed.
WHEREFORE, CES requests that this Court enter an order
invalidating MLRB's approval of Battle Mountain's Application on
the grounds that the MLRB decision was ultra vires, in excess of
its jurisdiction, arbitrary or capricious, otherwise contrary to
-6-