Capitol Business Equipment, Inc. v. Gates
| Decision Date | 19 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 13094,13094 |
| Citation | 155 W.Va. 260,184 S.E.2d 125 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | CAPITOL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, INC., a corporation v. John M. GATES, Commissioner, Etc., et al. |
Syllabus by the Court
'The general rule is that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute or by rules and regulations having the force and effect of law, relief must be sought from the administrative body, and such remedy must be exhausted before the courts will act.' Point 1, Syllabus, Daurelle v. Traders Federal Savings and Loan Association of Parkersburg, 143 W.Va. 674 (104 S.E.2d 320).
Lewis, Ciccarello, Masinter & Friedberg, Arthur T. Ciccarello, Charleston, for relator.
Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., Cletus B. Hanley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Victor A. Barone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for respondents.
CAPLAN, President:
In this original proceeding in mandamus the petitioner, Capitol Business Equipment, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, seeks a writ to compel the respondents, John M. Gates, Commissioner of the Department of Finance and Administration and Ben E. Rubrecht, Purchasing Director for the State of West Virginia, to restore the petitioner to its right to bid on state purchases. The petitioner, a dealer in office furnishings, fixtures and equipment, had been for many years prior to January 6, 1970 a registered and qualified vendor doing business with the State of West Virginia pursuant to the provisions of Code, 1931, 5A--3--14a, as amended.
It appears from the record of this proceeding that, by letter dated May 4, 1971, respondent Gates informed the petitioner that it was suspended 'from the right and privilege to bid on State purchases.' This suspension commenced on May 4, 1971 and was imposed for a period not to exceed one year. It is from this suspension that the petitioner here seeks relief.
Certain contentions of Capitol Business Equipment require reference to a former proceeding in this Court in which it was involved. On January 6, 1970, the petitioner was indicted by the Grand Jury of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County on a charge of violating Chapter 5A, Article 3, Section 38 of the West Virginia Code, as amended. On that day, the then Commissioner of Finance and Administration, by reason of said indictment, suspended the petitioner from the right and privilege of bidding on state purchases. That suspension was to extend for a period not exceeding one year or until disposition of the charges against it had been made. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal with the board provided in Code, 1931, 5A--3--40, as amended, wherein it questioned the propriety of the suspension. Rejecting the petitioner's position, the board refused reinstatement.
By an order of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County dated August 6, 1970 the indictments against Capitol Business Equipment, Inc. were dismissed and that defendant was discharged.
Subsequently, more than a year after its suspension, the petitioner, alleging that it had not been reinstated to bid on state purchases, filed a petition in mandamus in this Court seeking to compel the respondents to reinstate it. On the return day of the rule granted by this Court the respondents answered by showing that the petitioner had been reinstated. On this showing that the demand of the petitioner had been satisfied the case was dismissed as moot.
The petitioner now contends that the reinstatement of its right to do business with the state was dependent upon its answers to certain questions posed by the Commissioner of Finance and Administration; that such reinstatement was therefore limited and amounted to a subterfuge to circumvent a ruling of this Court; and that the May 4, 1971 suspension cannot be based on acts which occurred prior to that date.
In their answer the respondents deny that they were engaged in any subterfuge and attempt to specify the reasons for the instant suspension. Principally, however, their answer relies on the failure of the petitioner to exhaust its administrative remedies which are clearly provided in Code, 1931, 5A--3--40, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hechler v. Casey
...pt. 2, Bank of Wheeling v. Morris Plan Bank & Trust Co., 155 W.Va. 245, 183 S.E.2d 692 (1971); syl., Capitol Business Equipment, Inc. v. Gates, 155 W.Va. 260, 184 S.E.2d 125 (1971); and syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Burchett v. Taylor, 150 W.Va. 702, 149 S.E.2d 234 (1966), this Court in Cowie r......
-
State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. of Kanawha County v. Casey
...Syl. pt. 2, Bank of Wheeling v. Morris Plan Bank & Trust Co., 155 W.Va. 245, 183 S.E.2d 692 (1971); Syl., Capitol Business Equipment, Inc. v. Gates, 155 W.Va. 260, 184 S.E.2d 125 (1971); Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Burchett v. Taylor, 150 W.Va. 702, 149 S.E.2d 234 (1966). On the other hand, t......
-
Mounts v. Chafin
...have been exhausted and when there is no other available adequate remedy." (Citations omitted). Accord Capitol Bus. Equip., Inc. v. Gates, 155 W.Va. 260, 184 S.E.2d 125 (1971). Here, if the petitioner had desired to challenge the decision of the Governor's Committee to revoke his certificat......
-
Cowie v. Roberts, 15928
...Syl. pt. 2, Bank of Wheeling v. Morris Plan Bank & Trust Co., 155 W.Va. 245, 183 S.E.2d 692 (1971); Syl., Capitol Business Equipment, Inc. v. Gates, 155 W.Va. 260, 184 S.E.2d 125 (1971); Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Burchett v. Taylor, 150 W.Va. 702, 149 S.E.2d 234 (1966). Not only did the app......