Albert v. Public Service Commission
Decision Date | 09 February 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 57,57 |
Citation | 209 Md. 27,120 A.2d 346 |
Parties | Emil James ALBERT et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Hyman A. Pressman, Baltimore, for appellants.
Leon H. A. Pierson, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a petition for a writ of mandamus, without leave to amend, and the entry of a judgment for the appellees for costs.
On January 11, 1955, the appellants, one hundred taxicab drivers, filed a petition against the Public Service Commission of Maryland (the Commission), making the following allegations. They had had an aggregate of 1,718 years experience as taxicab drivers, representing an average of more than seventeen years. They desire to 'better their lot in life' by operating and owning taxicabs instead of working for some one else. On September 15, 1954, they filed a written application for one hundred permits to operate taxicabs and a request for hearing thereon at the office of the Commission. On September 29, 1954, the Commission refused to pass on the petitioners' application and indefinitely deferred the holding of a hearing for reasons contained in a letter from the executive secretary of the Commission. On October 12, 1954, the attorney for petitioners wrote to the Commission requesting a hearing. On October 22, 1954, the attorney for the petitioners wrote another letter to the Commission requesting a hearing in order to present evidence to prove the following: (1) That the taxicab service in Baltimore City is inadequate to satisfy public necessity and convenience. (2) That the issuance of additional taxicab permits is necessary for the public welfare. (3) That the appellants are qualified to receive permits, are entitled thereto and are in a position to render efficient service, including the hours when many present permit holders change shifts and leave the public without taxicab transportation. On October 28, 1954, the Commission wrote a letter to petitioners' attorney promising to give consideration to petitioners' request and to advise them of their decision in the near future. On January 5, 1955, the Commission wrote another letter to petitioners' attorney refusing to grant the hearing requested.
The petition further alleged that the refusal of the Commission to grant petitioners a hearing and to pass on their application for permits was dogmatic, arbitrary and capricious. Said refusal deprived petitioners of producing evidence before the Commission. The Commission obtained its data from present holders of taxicab permits, who wished to limit their competition without giving the petitioners an opportunity to discredit such data or to present evidence in contradiction thereto. The Commission's failure to pass on petitioners' application deprived them of their right to appeal, which they would have had if the application had been refused. The taxicab service in Baltimore is deplorable and inadequate and the granting of additional permits to operate taxicabs will best serve the public welfare and convenience. Petitioners asked that a mandamus be issued directing the Commission to hold a hearing on petitioners' application and within a reasonable time to pass an order granting or refusing to grant said application in whole or in part.
The letter aforesaid from the executive secretary of the Commission to petitioners' attorney, dated September 29, 1954, stated in part as follows: The letter of January 5, 1955, from the Commission, referred to in the bill of complaint, contained, among other things, the following:
To that bill of complaint, the Commission filed a demurrer in which it cited the provisions of Code 1951, Article 78, § 21. The demurrer further stated that the petition failed to show a clear legal right in the petitioners differing from that of the general public to hold the requested hearing. Also, that the petition failed to show that the refusal to hold a hearing is within the ministerial powers of the Commission and that a hearing would serve any useful purpose. The issuance of a writ of mandamus would impose upon the Commission an intolerable burden, not contemplated or provided by the provisions of Article 78, Section 21, supra.
After hearing on the demurrer, the trial judge found that there is no provision in law that the Commission must hold a hearing on every application. Further, that if he should issue a mandamus for such a hearing, many details would arise, such as, how long the hearing should last, how many witnesses should be heard, and what the scope of the inquiry should be. He, therefore, on May 12, 1955, passed an order sustaining the demurrer to appellants' petition without leave to amend and entered a judgment for costs in favor of the appellees. From that judgment appellants appeal.
Appellants contend in this Court that the Commission cannot legally deny a hearing and a decision upon an application for taxicab permits.
It is plain that the words in the letter from the Commission on January 5, 1955, as aforesaid, that 'it is clear to the Commission that additional taxicabs are not needed, that it would not be in the public interest to permit more taxicabs to be operated' was a denial of the requested permits. The question therefore before us is whether the appellants are entitled to a hearing before the Commission on their application for permits.
It is, of course, well settled in Maryland that the Commission, created by the Legislature, has only such powers as have been specifically given it by the Legislature. Electric Public Utilities Co. v. Public Service Comm., 154 Md. 445, 453, 140 A. 840.
Code 1951, Article 78, § 21, supra, in effect when the petition for mandamus was filed and the judgment rendered, provided: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.
...capacity and the facts to be determined are "legislative" rather than adjudicative in nature. See also Albert v. Pub. Serv. Commission, 209 Md. 27, 120 A.2d 346 (1956). The difference between adjudicative and legislative facts is not easily drawn; Professor Davis says that adjudicative fact......
-
County Council for Montgomery County v. Investors Funding Corp.
...Affairs, and further provided that upon such appeal, the Commission may hold a hearing. Relying upon Albert v. Public Service Commission, 209 Md. 27, 120 A.2d 346 (1956), the lower court voided § 93A-24(c), and related provisions, 'The Court considers that the requirments of procedural due ......
-
United States v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...applies only to agencies operating in a "quasi-judicial" rather than a "quasi-legislative" role. See also Albert v. Public Service Commission, 209 Md. 27, 120 A.2d 346, 350-51 (1956) (no right to hearing in quasi-legislative proceeding). Under Maryland law, it is unclear whether rate-making......
-
Woodmont Country Club v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville
...244 Md. 585, 588-589, 224 A.2d 453 (1966), proceedings for the sale of surplus public property are legislative; Albert v. Pub. Serv. Commission, 209 Md. 27, 120 A.2d 346 (1956), no hearing required in proceedings involving issuance of taxicab permits, although the requirement does exist in ......