Roberto v. Commissioners of Dep't of Pub. Utilities

• Decision Date: 05 March 1928
• Citation: 160 N.E. 321,262 Mass. 583
• Parties: ROBERTO v. COMMISSIONERS OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

262 Mass. 583

160 N.E. 321

ROBERTO

v.COMMISSIONERS OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 5, 1928.

Petition by Alphonse Roberto to review and set aside an order of the Department of Public Utilities revoking a certificate to operate motor vehicles. From a final decree of dismissal, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

H. Parker and H. Silverman, both of Boston, for petitioner.

C. F. Lovejoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRALEY, J.

This is a petition under G. L. c. 25, § 5, to review and set aside an order of the Department of Public Utilities revoking a certificate to operate motor vehicles on the route described in the certificate. The petitioner, a common carrier, engaged in the transportation of passengers by motor vehicles for hire in the cities of Boston and Revere, having been granted by each municipality a license as required by G. L. c. 159, § 45, as amended by St. 1925, c. 280, § 1, he applied for, and obtained on July 16, 1926, from the Department of Public Utilities the permit required by G. L. c. 159, § 48a, as added by St. 1925, c. 280, § 2, without which he could not lawfully use the public ways in his business. Burgess v. Mayor and Aldermen of Brockton, 235 Mass. 95, 101, 126 N. E. 456. The statute as amended provides that:

‘No person shall operate a motor vehicle under a license granted under section forty-five unless he has also obtained from the department a certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity require such operation. The department may, after public hearing, issue or refuse to issue such a certificate, or may issue the same for the partial exercise only of the privilege sought. Subject to the provisions of section forty-eight B, every such certificate, and every application therefor, shall specify the route or routes over which such motor vehicle or vehicles may operate, and may prescribe the period during which the rights granted therein or in such license may be exercised, and may attach to the exercise of said rights such terms and conditions as the department shall deem that public convenience and necessity may require; provided, that in respect to such carriage as may be exclusively interstate, said certificate shall not be required. The department may, after notice and hearing, revoke any such certificate for cause, and, subject to the provisions of section forty-eight B, may in like manner revise any provisions thereof and any of the terms and conditions of such certificate or license. Upon such revocation, or upon the termination of the period covered by such certificate, the right of any person to operate thereunder shall immediately terminate. The department may adopt rules prescribing the manner and form in which applications for certificates or for any modification of outstanding certificates shall be made.’

The certificate in question after stating that it was issued subject to such requirements, stipulations or conditions as may be set forth, described the route or routes with the places through which the applicant could run his vehicles, and admit and discharge passengers, and concluded with the following condition:

‘This certificate is given subject to the rules, terms, and provisions for the operation of motor vehicles for the carriage of passengers for hire, adopted by the department April 30, 1926, effective, May 15, 1926, and made a part hereof, and to the right of the department, after notice and hearing, to revoke said certificate for cause, or to revise any of the provisions thereof or revise, change or modify any of the rules, terms and conditions attached to the exercise of the rights herein granted.’

[2][3][4][5][6][7] The department on June 13, 1927, gave notice to the petitioner that the inspection division had reported that he was violating the conditions of the certificate and that the department would hear him June...