Licence Suspension Without a Hearing

Reviewability. The suspension is an individual administrative act: it is a unilateral decision by a public authority, applies to a named licensee, and immediately affects its right to operate. It is therefore reviewable by the administrative court. Exhaustion. Prior appeal to the Minister is required only if the licence law or the Administrative Procedure Law makes it a precondition. The facts do not show such a requirement. The company should check the statute and any regulation; if no exhaustion rule applies, it may file directly. Urgency. Because the suspension is already causing layoffs and contract loss, the company should file the court claim immediately and, in parallel, send a ministerial complaint to preserve any optional review route. A short statutory appeal period may apply, so waiting is risky. Conclusion. The suspension is reviewable; prior appeal is not automatic, but a protective complaint is prudent.

Legitimate aim. Preventing dust pollution above the permitted limit is a legitimate environmental and health aim. Suitability and necessity. A six-month shutdown of all extraction is severe. The law requires an opportunity to remedy minor violations, and the company had already submitted a remediation plan. Less restrictive measures were available: a compliance order, a fine, enhanced monitoring, partial suspension of the dust-generating operation, or a shorter deadline. The Ministry did not explain why those measures were insufficient. Proportionality stricto sensu. The harm to the company, 80 workers, and a 1.2 billion MNT contract outweighs the incremental environmental benefit when the violation was a failure to update equipment and the company was cooperating. The 2023 similar issue supports stricter scrutiny but not an automatic six-month closure. Due process. No hearing was held, so the company could not contest the dust reading or present its remediation plan. Conclusion. The suspension is likely unlawful for disproportionality and procedural unfairness.

Annulment and reconsideration. The administrative court can annul the suspension and, if the law allows, order the Ministry to reconsider within a fixed period. Interim relief. The company should request suspension of the act's execution. It must show urgency, a serious risk of irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and that the public interest does not outweigh the harm. Lost contracts and layoffs support urgency. Damages. Compensation for an unlawful administrative act requires proof of the act's unlawfulness, loss, causation, and quantum. The company should document the missed 1.2 billion MNT contract, wasted costs, and mitigation efforts. Lost profits may be limited if the contract was not foreseeable or not sufficiently concrete. Practical step. Preserve the inspection report, remediation plan, correspondence, and payroll records. A parallel ministerial complaint may produce faster reinstatement, but it does not replace the court claim.