In such cases, in response to a complaint such as the one described in § 9024 of this title, the Chief Permit Inspector shall have fifteen (15) business days to investigate the same. If, after conducting the corresponding investigation, the Chief Permit Inspector decides to exercise his/her powers pursuant to subchapter X of this chapter, he/she may request the revocation of the permit or the stay of the construction work or use that is allegedly not authorized by the Permit Management Office, the Adjudicatory Board, the authorized professional, or the Autonomous Municipality with I to V granted hierarchy, provided that the same is not in conflict with § 9020i of this title, in which case he/she shall resort to the Court of First Instance to request a court order to such effect. However, if the Chief Permit Inspector fails to take action within the term of fifteen (15) business days provided herein, the complainant may resort to the Court of First Instance to request the aforementioned remedies. In any case, the Court of First Instance shall hold a hearing within a term not to exceed ten (10) calendar days following the filing of the writ and prior to granting the remedies requested, and shall pronounce judgment within a term not greater than twenty (20) calendar days as of the filing of the complaint. In the event that, for any reason, the court issues an order granting the remedies requested without duly notifying the parties and/or having previously held a hearing, such court order shall not be valid nor shall it have any effect or be enforceable until the petitioner posts a bond that is sufficient to cover all damages this could cause to the respondent if, at the end of the judicial proceeding, the cause for action initiated by the petitioner is not in order. In any case, the factors established in the Joint Permit Regulation, following reasonable criteria, and the Court of First Instance shall not accept the posting of a bond from an insurance or bonding company that fails to clearly establish that it has sufficient solvency and financial capacity to respond for all damages, according to the computation of possible damages made by the Court.
History —Dec. 1, 2009, No. 161, § 14.2; Nov. 23, 2010, No. 175, § 11.