Laserfiche WebLink
The Act and implementing regulations provide in part that : <br /> "The Board shall not agree to a compliance schedule if : <br /> (a) The permittee has become insolvent, failed in <br /> business, been adjudicated a bankrupt, filed a petition <br /> in bankruptcy . . . " <br /> 2 Colo. Code Regs . § 407-2, Section 3 . 04 . 1 (1991) . The Amended <br /> Complaint reflects that Resources petitioned for bankruptcy in <br /> February, 1992 . When that happened, the schedule was no longer <br /> operative because the Board had no authority to agree to it . <br /> Therefore, the Division had no authority to enforce the schedule, <br /> and the defendants cannot be held liable for any alleged violation <br /> of it . <br /> In addition, the Act and implementing regulations contain a <br /> specific procedure to be followed in the event that a mining <br /> permit is revoked. In such a case, the Board is required to <br /> forfeit and collect upon the bond. The statute and regulations <br /> provide, further, that the proceeds of the forfeited bonds shall <br /> be available to and used by the Division for reclamation of the <br /> area covered by the bond. See, e.g. , C.R.S. § 34-33-124 (4) (1993 <br /> Supp. ) ; 2 Colo. Code Regs . § 407-2, Section 3 . 04 .2 (1) (c) , (4) <br /> (1991) . <br /> The Board has revoked Resources' permit, but the Amended <br /> Complaint is devoid of any allegation that the Division has <br /> collected bond proceeds and used them for reclamation. This <br /> Court' s jurisdiction in an action like this is limited to <br /> providing "such relief as may be appropriate. " C.R.S. § 34-33- <br /> 123 (12) (1993 Supp. ) . Absent compliance by the Division with the <br /> required statutory procedure, it is inappropriate for this Court <br /> -7- <br />