ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This
matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”) pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 1‑23‑310 et seq. (2005 & Supp. 2005) and S.C.
Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2005) for a contested case hearing. The
Petitioner, Preston Madison, seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for the
location at 530 Bradleyville Road, North Augusta, South Carolina 29841. The
South Carolina Department of Revenue (“Department”) received a written protest
from the Bradley Terrace Beautification Committee signed by residents of the
community who raised the issue of suitability of location (“Protestants”). Aside
from the protest, the Department stipulated that the application meets all
other statutory requirements.
After
notice to the parties and Protestants, the court held a hearing on August 9,
2006 at the ALC in Columbia, South Carolina. The Petitioner was present at the
hearing as was the Department. The Protestants did not appear at the hearing
and did not notify the court that they would not be appearing.
After
waiting approximately fifteen minutes for the Protestants to appear, the court deemed
the protest invalid for failure to appear pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-525(C)
which states, “If the protestant, during the investigation expresses no desire
to attend a contested hearing and offer testimony, the protest is considered
invalid, and the department shall continue to process the application and shall
issue the permit if all other statutory requirements are met.” In addition, ALC
Rule 23 provides:
The administrative
law judge may dismiss a contested case or dispose of a contested case adverse
to the defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or
otherwise prosecute or defend, fails to appear at a hearing without the proper
consent of the judge or fails to comply with any interlocutory order of the
administrative law judge. Any non‑defaulting party may move for an order
dismissing the case or terminating it adversely to the defaulting party.
Because
the Protestants did not appear before the court, did not request a continuance,
and have not otherwise contacted this tribunal regarding this hearing as of the
issuance of this Order, it is hereby
ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Department of Revenue with instructions to
continue processing the Petitioner’s application and to issue the requested on-premises
beer and wine permit pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-525(C), -540 (Supp.
2005).
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
PAIGE J.
GOSSETT
Administrative
Law Judge
September 3, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
