The issue in this case is whether the Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5, Chapter 7 (Repl. 1976), is applicable to decisions by the Arkansas State Highway Commission to grant or deny permits for outdoor advertising signs. No evidence was taken in this case and the lower court made its decision on the pleadings alone. Thоse pleadings establish that the appellee, White Advertising, held nine permits to erect and maintаin outdoor advertising signs no closer than 660 feet from the right-of-way of Interstate 55 near Blytheville. The permits for the signs were issued by the Commission pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 76, Chapter 25 (Repl. 1957 and Supp. 1979). The appellant Commission pleaded that seven of the signs had been destroyed during a stоrm and that permits to rebuild them had never been issued. White Advertising denied that the original signs had been destroyed and contended that the original permits were still valid. The pleadings admit that the Commission caused thе seven signs to be cut down after notice but without an administrative hearing. White alleged that seven signs had а replacement value of §122,504.00 and that it is suffering a monthly rental loss of §3,429-70. Appellant Commission denies thе claimed losses.
The pleadings admit that the Commission voided permits for the maintenance of twо additional signs. The Commission contends that the permits were voided only after the discovery that they оriginally were issued upon the false representation that the signs were 660 feet from the right-of-way. White contends that they were properly located and that no false representations were made. Both parties agree that the Commission has made a decision to cut down these two signs.
The trial court ruled that the Commission’s actions were void and mandated the Commission to reissue the pеrmits for all nine signs.
The Commission argues that jurisdiction does not lie in the circuit court. Appellee White’s рrayer for relief asked, among other things, an order requiring the Commission “to conduct a hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.” This amounts to a petition for a writ of mandamus which is сognizable only in circuit court. Arkansas State Police Commission v. Davidson,
The Commission contends that its admitted decision to cancel permits and cut down signs does not amоunt to an “adjudication.” In Arkansas State Highway Com’n. v. Wood,
Thе trial court ordered the permits to be reissued. Such an order substitutes the judgment of the circuit court fоr that of the Commission. Article 4 of the Arkansas Constitution prohibits intrusion by the judiciary upon the domain of either the legislative or the executive branches of government. Wenderoth v. City of Port Smith,
It is well sеttled that administrative agencies are better equipped than courts, by specialization, insight thrоugh experience and more flexible procedures to determine and analyze underlying legal issues ... This recognition has been asserted, as perhaps the principal basis for the limited scоpe of judicial review of administrative action and the refusal of the court to substitute its judgment and disсretion for that of the administrative agency.
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-710 requires that an administrative agency make findings of fаct and conclusions of law. Our decision in Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass’n. Board v. Central Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass’n.,
The reasons have to do with facilitating judicial review, avoiding judicial usurpation of administrative functions, assuring more careful administrative consideration, helping parties plan their cases for rehearings and judicial review, and keeping agencies within their jurisdiction.
As the administrative agency has not held a hearing and has not stated its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the correct procedure is to reverse and remand to the agency for further proceeding. Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass’n. v. Central Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass’n., supra.
Reversed and remanded.