Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Commission

• Decision Date: 15 April 1974
• Docket Number: No. 26005,26005
• Parties: BESTWAY DISPOSAL, a partnership, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of the State of Colorado et al., Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1039

520 P.2d 1039

184 Colo. 428

BESTWAY DISPOSAL, a partnership, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of the State of Colorado et al.,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 26005.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

April 15, 1974.

Robert G. Shepherd, Jr., William Andrew Wilson, Denver, for petitioners-appellants.

John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Irvin M. Kent, Eugene C. Cavaliere, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for respondents-appellees, Public Utilities Comm. of Colo., Howard S. Bjelland, Edwin R. Lundborg and Henry E. Zarlengo, Comm'rs.

Holland & Hart, Jeffrey C. Pond, Denver, for respondent-appellee Denver Cleanup Service, Inc.

HODGES, Justice.

The appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint on the grounds of mootness. We affirm the trial court's judgment of dismissal.

Appellee, Denver Cleanup Service, Inc., made application for and was granted temporary contract carrier authority for 180 days by the appellee Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to provide rubbish removal service to four large commercial customers. They had previously been served by the appellee carrier under its certificates of public convenience and necessity. Because these customers were located in an area annexed to Denver, a question arose as to whether the appellee carrier could legally serve them under the territorial grant contained in its certificates. This question was resolved against the appellee carrier. The PUC, faced with these unique circumstances, permitted the appellee carrier to serve these customers for a brief period during which they would have the opportunity to make other arrangements for their rubbish removal.

The authority of the PUC to grant a temporary authority for no more than 180 days is set forth in 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 115--6--20(1) which provides:

'To enable the provision of carrier service for which there appears to be an immediate and urgent need to a point or points or within a territory having no carrier service capable of meeting such need, the commission may, in its discretion and without hearings or other proceedings, grant temporary authority for such service by a common carrier, or a contract carrier by motor vehicle, as the case may be. Such temporary authority, unless suspended or revoked for good cause, shall be valid for such time as the commission shall specify, but for not more than an aggregate of one hundred eighty days, and shall create no presumption that corresponding permanent authority will be granted thereafter.'

The appellants, all of whom are common carriers authorized to serve in the annexed area, were protestants before the PUC, and by their complaint in the trial court pursuant to 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 115--6--15, they sought reversal of this PUC grant of temporary authority on the ground that it was granted in contravention of the provision of law above quoted. The temporary authority expired a short time after the answer to the complaint was filed. The trial court on motion of the appellees dismissed the case on the ground of mootness. It is from this judgment of dismissal that this appeal is taken.

The thrust of the appellants' argument on appeal is that the granting of the temporary authority was based upon an incorrect PUC interpretation of 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 115--6--20(1). Conceding that the issue of the case...