Case Name: In the Matter of SHINTECH and its Affiliates
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1999-03-31
Citations: 734 So. 2d 772
Docket Number: No. 98 CW 2024
Parties: In the Matter of SHINTECH and its Affiliates.
Judges: BEFORE: CARTER, C.J., SHORTESS AND WHIPPLE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 734
Pages: 772–776-782

Head Matter:
In the Matter of SHINTECH and its Affiliates.
No. 98 CW 2024.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
March 31, 1999.
Writ Denied June 25, 1999.
Jackie M. Marve, Mazie M. Doomes, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for relators, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality-
Elizabeth E. Teel, Robert R. Kuehn, New Orleans, Louisiana, for respondents, St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environmental, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Southern Action Network, and Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Robert E. Holden, New Orleans, for Shintech and its Affiliates.
BEFORE: CARTER, C.J., SHORTESS AND WHIPPLE, JJ.

Opinion:
2PER CURIAM.
The Department of Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to as DEQ) seeks review of the district court decision ordering DEQ to hold a hearing on a motion to recuse the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Assistant Secretary of DEQ, which was filed by St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Southern Christian Leadership (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Citizens Group). Finding the district court should have declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, we grant this writ and vacate the district court's judgment.
FACTS
Shintech and its affiliates sought draft air permits for a proposed polyvinyl chloride production facility in St. James Parish. The Citizens Group filed a motion to recuse the Secretary of DEQ, the Deputy Secretary of DEQ and the Assistant Seere- tary of the Office of Air Quality in connection with the permit process. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DEQ denied the motion, noting the power to issue air permits had been delegated to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Air Quality. The Assistant Secretary of the Office of Air Quality also denied the motion to re-cuse.
The Citizens Group then filed an application for supervisory writs in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, which the district court granted. The district court concluded it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals of final permit actions, enforcement actions, and declaratory rulings under the authority of La.R.S. 30:2050.21. Noting the legislature made no express provision for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction when granting appellate jurisdiction to the district court, the trial court concluded it had supervisory jurisdiction under La.Code Civ.P. art. 2201. The district court remanded the matter to DEQ to conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether recusal was appropriate. DEQ filed motions for reconsideration and a stay, which were denied. This writ application followed.
DISCUSSION
Article V, § 16(B) vests the district court with appellate jurisdiction as provided by law. La.R.S. 30:2050.21(A) provides that "[a]n aggrieved person may appeal devolutively a final permit action, a final enforcement action, or a declaratory ruling only |gto the Nineteenth Judicial District Court." La.Code Civ.P. art 2201 provides that "[sjupervisory writs may be applied for and granted in accordance with the constitution and rules of the supreme-court and other courts exercising appellate jurisdiction." La. Const. Art. V, § 2, provides that "[a] judge may issue writs of habeas corpus and all needful writs, orders and process in aid of the jurisdiction of his court ." Therefore, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an application for supervisory writs incident to the district court's appellate jurisdiction. See State v. Short, 339 So.2d 326 (La.1976). However, it was imprudent for the district court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction at this juncture of the permit approval process.
Although the Citizens Group had the right to raise the issue of impartiality or bias as part of the public comments provided for in La.R.S. 30:2016, there is no statutory entitlement to judicial review at this stage of the permit approval process. Not everything an agency does must be subject to the immediate availability of judicial review in order to insure the agency's action is valid. Boeing Co. v. Louisiana Dept. of Economic Development, 94-0971 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/23/95); 657 So.2d 652, 657. The right to judicial scrutiny exists when there is a claim of deprivation of a constitutionally protected right or the assertion that agency action exceeds constitutional authority. The right to judicial scrutiny also exists to determine if actions of administrative agencies are in excess of their legislative grant of authority. Boeing, supra. Herein, no permit has been issued. There is, as of yet, no deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. Nor does there exist at this time any other basis for the exercise of the district court's supervisory jurisdiction. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is vacated.
WRIT GRANTED. JUDGMENT VACATED.
SHORTESS, J., concurs with reasons.