In re Abandonment of Wells Located in Illinois by Leavell

Case Date: 08/14/2003
Court: 5th District Appellate
Docket No: 5-02-0220 Rel

               NOTICE
Decision filed 08/14/03.  The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.

NO. 5-02-0220

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT


In re ABANDONMENT OF WELLS
LOCATED IN ILLINOIS BY EVA LOVENE 
LEAVELL, d/b/a L&L SUPPLY
COMPANY, PERMITTEE NO. 1031

(Eva Lovene Leavell,

          Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

The Department of Natural Resources,
Office of Mines and Minerals,

          Respondent-Appellee).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
White County.





No. 01-MR-4



Honorable
Robert W. Lewis,
Judge, presiding.


JUSTICE MAAG delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal arises from a decision of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources(Department) following an administrative hearing. The Department affirmed its hearingofficer's finding that certain oil and injection wells permitted to Eva Lovene Leavell, doingbusiness as L&L Supply Company (L&L), had been abandoned, and the Department orderedL&L to plug the wells. L&L petitioned for judicial review in the circuit court of WhiteCounty. L&L alleged that the Department's decision was void ab initio because theDepartment had failed to serve it with notice of the administrative hearing, in violation of itsconstitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Department filed a motionto dismiss the complaint for judicial review on the ground that L&L failed to provide for theissuance of a summons within 35 days of the decision, in accordance with section 3-103 ofthe Illinois Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-103 (West 2000)). The circuit courtgranted the Department's motion and dismissed the petition without considering theconstitutional issue. L&L has appealed.

On appeal, L&L contends that the Department's decision was void ab initio becauseof the due process violation. It also contends that the circuit court's authority to considerconstitutional claims is not restricted by any provision in the Administrative Review Law(735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2000)) and that the trial court erred in dismissing thepetition without considering the constitutional issue.

In a proceeding where a person's right or interest in life, liberty, or property isaffected, due process requires that the person be served with adequate notice, be apprised ofa definite charge, and be afforded an opportunity to defend that interest in a fair andimpartial hearing that is appropriate to the nature of the case. In re Estate of Hecht, 63 Ill.App. 3d 539, 540, 379 N.E.2d 1322, 1324 (1978). The guarantee of the due process of lawextends to every governmental proceeding that may interfere with personal or property rightsor interests, whether that process is executive, legislative, judicial, or administrative. Peopleex rel. Harris v. Parrish Oil Production, Inc., 249 Ill. App. 3d 664, 667, 622 N.E.2d 810,814 (1993). An administrative hearing must be conducted in accordance with the dueprocess requirements under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution andarticle I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution. In re Estate of Hecht, 63 Ill. App. 3d at 540,379 N.E.2d at 1324.

Administrative agencies exercise powers provided strictly by statute and possess noinherent or common law powers. Newkirk v. Bigard, 109 Ill. 2d 28, 37, 485 N.E.2d 321, 325(1985). An administrative agency, such as the Department, has the authority to act if it hasthe following: (1) personal jurisdiction over the parties and any intervenors to theadministrative proceeding, (2) subject matter jurisdiction over the general class of cases towhich the particular case belongs, and (3) the inherent statutory authority to make or enterthe particular order involved. Newkirk, 109 Ill. 2d at 36-37, 485 N.E.2d at 324-25. Thoughthe term "jurisdiction" is not strictly applicable to an administrative agency, the rulesconcerning the authority of an administrative agency and the validity of its orders have beenheld to be analogous to those governing courts of limited jurisdiction. City of Chicago v.Fair Employment Practices Comm'n, 65 Ill. 2d 108, 112, 357 N.E.2d 1154, 1155 (1976). Any actions beyond the scope of the agency's jurisdiction are void and may be attacked atany time or in any court, either directly or collaterally. City of Chicago, 65 Ill. 2d at 112,357 N.E.2d at 1155.

The Illinois legislature has authorized the Department to conduct hearings and toorder that a well be plugged if it has been abandoned. See 225 ILCS 725/6(1) (West 2000). The general rules of procedure governing administrative hearings are found in Article 10 ofthe Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (Act) (5 ILCS 100/10-5 et seq. (West 2000)). Section 240.1610 of the Illinois Administrative Code (Code) (62 Ill. Adm. Code