Department of Natural Resources v. American Cyanamid Co., 32579
| Decision Date | 27 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32579,32579 |
| Citation | 239 Ga. 740,238 S.E.2d 886 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES et al. v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Bomar, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Don A. Langham, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, J. William Futrell, Athens, amicus curiae, for appellants.
Charles H. Tisdale, Jr., P. Brantley Davis, Kirk M. McAlpin, King & Spalding, Atlanta, W. Spencer Connerat, Jr., Hunter, Houlihan, Maclean, Exley, Dunn & Connerat, Savannah, John A. Pickens, Atlanta, Joseph T. Childs, Wayne, N. J., for appellee.
The Department of Natural Resources appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Fulton County enjoining it from conducting any further administrative review of a prior decision of the agency rendered in favor of the American Cyanamid Company on the question of whether appropriate penalties should be imposed upon American Cyanamid for its violation of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.
The Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources instituted administrative proceedings against American Cyanamid for its failure to meet a 1972 pollution control deadline. Although the hearing officer found that American Cyanamid could not meet the deadline because current technology was not sufficiently advanced to enable it to do so, he decided, nevertheless, that the appellee should pay the statutory fine. American Cyanamid appealed this ruling pursuant to Ga. Code Ann. § 40-3519, to the five-member Administrative Review Committee. (The Board of Natural Resources appoints five of its own members to serve on this committee.) The committee found, inter alia, that the Environmental Protection Division had wrongfully refused to grant American Cyanamid an extension on the pollution control deadlines and that the hearing officer's decision to recommend imposition of the fine must be reversed.
Dissatisfied with the five-member committee's decision, the Board of Natural Resources advised American Cyanamid's counsel by letter that it was going to hold a hearing on whether it, the "full board," should review the decision of the Administrative Review Committee. Notwithstanding written and oral objections by American Cyanamid that the Board of Natural Resources had no legal authority to review a "final decision" of the five-member Administrative Review Committee, the board voted to review the committee's decision.
In response to the board's attempt to "review" the decision, American Cyanamid filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County seeking, among other remedies, an injunction against any such action by the board. American Cyanamid asserted in its petition that under § 17(a) of the Executive Reorganization Act of 1972 (Ga. Code Ann. § 40-3519(a)), which provides that hearings and review shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Georgia's Administrative Procedure Act, a decision of the five-man Administrative Review Committee could not be reviewed by the full board as it was a "final decision" of the agency. The Board of Natural Resources asserted in defense that the committee's decision was not "final" and that the court should not disrupt the administrative process by grant of injunctive relief. The trial court, basing its decision on Ga. Code Ann. § 3A-118(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act and specifically pretermitting the issue of whether the full Board of Natural Resources has authority to review a decision of its Administrative Review Committee, found that the board had no jurisdiction to review "this" case. More specifically, the court held that the board had not complied with § 3A-118(c) which provides that an agency shall render a final decision within 30 days after the close of the record, unless the time period is extended by the agency out of necessity.
1. The Board of Natural Resources argues that the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction to enjoin it and in holding that it, the "full board," could not review the decision of the Administrative Review Committee because such action would not be within the time period allowed by Ga. Code Ann. § 3A-118(c). We disagree and affirm the holding of the trial court. Section 17(a) of the Executive Reorganization Act of 1972 provides, among other things, that any administrative review of an initial hearing "shall be conducted in accordance with the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (Title 3A)." The Georgia Administrative Procedure Act provides that "(e)ach agency shall render a final decision in contested cases within 30 days after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Exec. Limousine Transp., Inc. v. Curry
...is statutorily given and must be strictly construed to comport with legislative intent." Dept. of Natural Resources v. American Cyanamid Co. , 239 Ga. 740, 743 (3), 238 S.E.2d 886 (1977). Here, the legislature's intent is explicit. When the General Assembly created the tribunal in 2012, it ......
-
Georgia Public Service Com'n v. Southern Bell
...Commission, 203 Ga. 832, 49 S.E.2d 38 (1948), which upheld preliminary injunctive relief and by Dept. of Natural Resources v. American Cyanamid Co., 239 Ga. 740, 238 S.E.2d 886 (1977), on the principle that equity will intervene where there is no adequate remedy at law. Proceedings of the P......
-
Exec. Limousine Transp. v. Curry
... ... AS REVENUE COMMISSIONER OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. No. A21A0955 Court of Appeals of ... statutory text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ... ordinary ... intent." Dept. of Natural Resources v. American ... Cyanamid Co. , 239 Ga. 740, ... ...
-
HCA Health Services, Inc. v. Roach
...and we are required to construe that jurisdiction strictly to comport with the legislative intent. Natural Resources v. American & C. Co., 239 Ga. 740, 743, 238 S.E.2d 886 (1977). Under the State Health Planning and Development Act (the Act), SHPA is authorized and required to administer th......