SUMMARY. Austin Hardware V CA
SUMMARY. Austin Hardware V CA
SUMMARY. Austin Hardware V CA
COURT OF APPEALS
ISSUE:
Whether or not the revocation of their licenses or permits violated the
requirements of procedural due process because the investigation which led to
the revocation of their licenses/permits was not to determine the presence of a
ground for revocation, namely, violation of a zonification ordinance of San
Juan, but an alleged nuisance produced by their operations?
The authority which grants the license always retains the power to revoke it,
"either for cause of forfeiture or upon a change of policy and legislation
touching on the subject, as may be seen in the following terms/conditions:
-In the case at bar, the permit issued to the Austin Hardware Company,
Inc. and the All Steel Products, Inc. was granted subject to the
provisions of existing ordinances.
The business establishments of petitioners were situated within the residential zone.
The issuance of a license or permit in favor of the petitioners appears violative of Section 2 of
Municipal Ordinance No. 90, Series of 1968, of San Juan, which provides that "No building
permit, business license, or any other certificate of approval shall be issued by the municipality
for commercial or industrial establishments which shall be erected, operated, and maintained
within any residential zone, unless the site has been or so declared as commercial or industrial
zone in the municipal council."
For this reason the Municipal Mayor of San Juan cancelled or revoked
(a) the business license of the Austin Hardware Company, Inc. dated September 8, 1969
as general hardware manufacturer;
(b) the business license of the All Steel Products, Inc. dated July 7, 1970 as manufacturer
of steel products; and
(c) the permit to operate issued ' to All Steel Products, Inc. dated January 31, 1973 for
steel manufacturing.
The obvious purpose of zoning is the enforcement of the general welfare of the populace i.e.,
the protection of public safety, health, convenience and welfare, it would have been
inconsistent with such purpose to have allowed the operation of petitioners' manufacturing
business in a residential zone.