The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5386 October 13, 1978 LICENSES AND PERMITS: Issuance of license where statutory requirements have been met ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE: Issuance of a license where statutory requirements have been met STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Approval of an application for a charter of an educational corporation Where an application for a charter for an educational corporation meets the requirements of 1931 PA 327, the State Board of Education has a clear duty to give its approval and may not table the matter for an indefinite period of time. Dr. John W. Porter Superintendent of Public Instruction Michigan National Tower Lansing, Michigan You have requested my opinion on the following questions: 'Does the State Board of Education have a positive duty to approve an application for a charter or amended charter for an educational corporation where the applicant meets the requirements of Act No. 327 of the Public Acts of 1931, as amended, or may the Board, acting within its own discretion, withhold such approval? Further, may the State Board of Education defer approval or disapproval on such an application by tabling the request for an indefinite period of time?' The legislature has provided, in 1931 PA 327, Sec. 171, MCLA 450.171; MSA 21.172, that educational corporations desiring to file their articles of incorporation or amendments thereto must first obtain the written approval of the State Board of Education as to the adequacy of their proposed educational programs. The statute provides for a determination of adequacy by the State Board of Education as to the housing space and administration facilities, the educational program, the laboratory, library and teaching facilities, the staff and capitalization of the applicant. See City of Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 33 NW2d 737 (1948); Attorney General v Capitol Service, Inc, 355 Mich 545, 94 NW2d 814 (1959). Where the statutory requirements for the issuance of a license have been met, the public official or body charged with issuing the license may not impose additional requirements beyond those set forth in the statute. Schweitzer v Board of Forensic Polygraph Examiners, 77 Mich App 749, 259 NW2d 362 (1977). Further, where the statutory requirements for a license have been met and the public licensing authority will not act to grant the license, the courts will issue a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of the license. Hazel Park Racing Association, Inc v Racing Commissioner, 336 Mich 508, 58 NW2d 241 (1953). Thus, based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that where an applicant meets the requirements of 1931 PA 327, Sec. 171, supra, the State Board of Education has a clear duty to give and may not withhold its approval. It is also my opinion that, where the requirements of 1931 PA 327, Sec. 171, supra, have been met by an applicant, the State Board of Education may not table the matter for an indefinite period of time. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General