v. District Court, 191 Colo. 107, 550 P.2d 864 (1976), in which we held that a county board of social services did not have standing to challenge a decision of the state department of social services because the county board was not an adversely affected or aggrieved party within the meaning of section 24-4-106 of the APA. Ad Hoc Executive Committee v. Runyan, 716 P.2d at 468-69. We reaffirmed the rule espoused in Martin that “[i]n the absence of an express statutory right, a subordinate state agency ... lacks standing or any other legal authority to obtain judicial review of an action of a superior state agen-cy_” Id. at 469 (quoting Martin v. District Court, 191 Colo, at 109, 550 P.2d at 866). See also Iowa Department of Revenue v. Iowa State Board of Tax Review, 267 N.W.2d at 680 (<HOLDING>). The rule that a subordinate official or
holding nonparty department of mental health had standing to appeal commitment order regarding person found not guilty by reason of insanity because department had direct interest that was affected by commitment order and because employees of the department conceivably could be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order holding that where department of transportation regulations did not require department officials to enforce vehicle regulations the departments decision not to do so was discretionary holding that under separation of powers the legislative department makes the laws the executive department carries the laws into effect and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department holding that the company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit