Court Opinion

ID: 9606280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:48:44.351342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:07.264149
License: Public Domain

*740Weltner, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree that the judgment of the trial court denying mandamus absolute should be affirmed. Affirmance should be based, however, upon the preliminary question of whether the statute compels the director of the Environmental Protection Division to take the action sought by the complainants.
Whether that action is within or beyond his statutory powers (as disputed between the majority and the dissent), it is plain that any power granted to the director lies within his official discretion. Mandamus, of course, will not lie for discretionary acts. “Mandamus shall not lie as a private remedy between individuals to enforce private rights nor to a public officer who has an absolute discretion to act or not to act unless there is a gross abuse of such discretion.” OCGA § 9-6-21 (a).