MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                                 865

SHALL BE SENT TO THE DEPARTMENT AND IT SHALL REVIEW
THE APPLICATION AND MAP TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OR
ABSENCE OF THE DANGER OF POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION,
DIVERSION, OR DEPLETION OF SUBSURFACE AND PERCOLATING
WATERS. THE DEPARTMENT MAY TAKE THE TESTIMONY OF ANY
OTHER PERSON. IT SHALL DECIDE WHETHER THE GRANTING OF
ANY APPLICATION WOULD LIKELY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC
SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
DETERMINATION, GRANT OR DENY THE APPLICATION.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section presently appears as
Article 66C, section 692 of the Code.
Nomenclatural changes are made pursuant to
Chapter 348, Acts of 1972. The only other
changes made are in style.

6-307. SUBTITLE ENFORCEABLE IN PRINCE GEORGE'S
COUNTY.

THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBTITLE ARE ENFORCEABLE
BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE'S
COUNTY TO OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section presently appears as
the final sentence of Article 66C, section
691 of the Code. Chapter 791, Acts of 1957
indicates that this subtitle pertains only
to Prince George's County, therefore all
action should be initiated in that county.
See also section 6—302. The reference to
"proceeding in lieu of prerogative wit"
(please note the spelling error) is
proposed for deletion. It is believed that
this does not exist in Maryland
jurisprudence. This language might have
been originally copied from possibly New
Jersey, Connecticut, or perhaps
Pennsylvania. At common law, prerogative
writs were mandamus, procedendo,
prohibition, quo warranto, habeas corpus,
and certiorari. Quo warranto has been
abolished in Maryland—Rule BL 40. Habeas
corpus applies to people, not petroleum
products. Certiorari does not seem
appropriate in this context nor does
procedendo, if it still exists. It is
believed prohibition applies, Talbolt v.

Fidelity &__Gas. Co., 74 Md. 537, writ

issued by superior et to inferior et, to
prevent the latter from exceeding his