*1 76 Fox, Hanes, M. for Joseph Lefkoff, George & Lefkoff
Aldridge. Oehlert, III, Sizemore, H. & Ben Heyman appellees. LINES, INC. v.
30467, 30468. GREYHOUND al.; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et GEORGIA and vice versa. Justice.
Ingram, Line for some years operated Bus has Greyhound Atlanta, Athens and passing a bus between morning enroute, and at Lawrenceville and a through stopping bus about the same time between Lawrenceville morning Atlanta, public and under certificates of convenience and the Public Service Commission. necessity granted by buses which make the return There are also two evening trip stops morning with the same as the buses. to have the sought morning evening trips between Lawrenceville and Atlanta discontinued as uneconomical and redundant because the Athens bus could handle the load of both buses. passenger After Public Service hearing, disapprov- Commission ed Greyhound’s to discontinue bus. then filed the litigation which resulted in an adverse the trial ruling court.
This order of the Public Service Commission must be judged the courts following principle law: court, review,
Neither the trial nor this court on substitute its own discretion and for that of the judgment Public Service Commission it has exercised its where discretion in a matter over it jurisdiction, which has neither court will interfere of the Public with a valid order Service Commission clearly unless shown unreasonable, order is Atlanta arbitrary capricious. (1) Commn., v. Public 211 Motor Lines Ga. Service Ga. 698 387) (88 (1955); v. SE2d Woodside &c. Co. Ga. Transfer
77 Commn., (1) (94 709) Public 212 625 Service Ga. SE2d (1956); Tamiami Trail Tours v. Ga. Public Service Commn., (99 225) 418, (1957); 213 425 Ga. SE2d Brown (4) Pilcher, (149 Transport v. Corp. 276, Ga. SE2d 670) (1966); Atlanta Gas Co. v. Light Ga. Public Service 835) (1972). 229 Ga. SE2d
The issue Greyhound we decide is has whether shown clearly that the denial of its the application by unreasonable, Public Service Commission arbitrary was or capricious. record, After careful review of the we that correctly conclude trial court decided the commission has not acted in unreasonably, arbitrarily or capriciously this case.
Greyhound there no to argues support is evidence the by conclusion reached the In if commission. our judgment, the record any contains reasonable the basis for decision of the commission we have no authority to set aside. See Tamiami Trail Tours v. Ga. Public Service supra, 425. p. reason, For this it is unnecessary to recite the evidence offered It Greyhound. is sufficient note to if that the commission had granted Greyhound’s application, the evidence in the record it. would authorize The question is whether the entire record demands a different result that from reached by the commission.
Greyhound’s at the position hearing before the commission was not A unopposed. state senator from County Gwinnett testified and the not urged commission to deny Greyhound’s commuters "their mode of transportation work, to their their to livelihood.” Another presented witness a statement from the Board of Commissioners of Gwinnett County urged which the service, it, commission to increase rather than diminish of the because fuel crisis. A representative state from Gwinnett also and County testified view expressed his that it would inexpedient to discontinue Lawrenceville in bus view of the uncertain economic situation.
Greyhound argues that these statements not were evidence which controverted the facts it but offered should be characterized as mere pleas to the arguments addition, commission. In the commission considered opposing several letters from commuters made known These letters were Greyhound’s application. raised and it to issues responded to the commission’s However, object it did not letters. either the sworn statements consideration to the unsworn opposition or appeared witnesses who two of the letters was gist from commuters. The letters Lawrenceville, working as One rider living follows: has told the commission she years, Atlanta "almost all of bus to Atlanta for ridden the Lawrenceville bus has never been time.” She said the Athens "I stated, from Lawrenceville dependable. Another rider schedule, on the Athens to Atlanta depend solely cannot in the happened due to that have many so breakdowns in Atlanta. past, myself and others late to work” making if these Greyhound urges that we do not consider support statements and letters there is no evidence commission’s decision. In these statements suggesting should not have been considered commission, and thus cannot be used to authorize the now decision, portion commission’s relies on a "Upon Rule of the commission. It as follows: provides *3 of all that to be heard hearing may cases come on Commission, respective parties may before present oral, by their either or or testimony, written However, affidavits.” as counsel for the commission out, Rule 91 of the that: points provides commission also evidence, "This rule of and of as to notice procedure except of above in all hearing provided, may any and instances be varied or relaxed in a when the exercise of sound discretion that a opinion this Commission shall be of the departure may necessary from the letter thereof to the attainment of justice; substantial due care taken being in every instance to guard against any injurious sur- prises.”
We think the commission under its was authorized rules to consider the statements of the witnesses and the in opposition to Greyhound’s application. Apparently, Greyhound thought hearing so at the before the commission objection because no to them was made until event, the case into court. In got any there is no contention, if be, indeed there could the commission does not have the rule it authority to-adopt the has which
79 permits consideration of matters that would otherwise be judicial inquiry. inadmissible as in evidence hearing This before the Public Service Commission equated judicial inquiry cannot be to a before the court. investigatory hearing Rather, it is more of an for the legislative future that has more of the characteristics aof hearing judicial hearing. judicial inquiry than a "A investigates, they declares and enforces liabilities as past supposed stand on already facts and under laws purpose Legislation to exist. That is its and end. changes existing on the other hand looks to the future and by making applied conditions, a new rule to be thereafter part subject power. to all or some of those to its (or add) might establishment of a rate schedule, a bus we making is the future, of a rule for the and therefore is an legislative judicial Light Act not in kind.” Mut. &c. Co. v. 178) (124 (1924) City Brunswick, 158 Ga. SE (quoting from Prentis v. Line, Atlantic Coast 211 U. S. (29 67) (1908)). SC
In Tamiami Trail Tours v. Ga. Public Service
supra,
this court said: "The Commission is
adopt
authorized
statute to
rules of evidence and
procedure
carrying
in
out its
duties
the administration
Chapter
Code,
and is not bound
strict rules
conducting
§
hearings.
evidence
its
Code
68-523.
jurisdictions
respect
Similar statutes of other
with
agencies
administrative
have been considered
generally
courts, and it has been
held that the strict rules
applicable
jury-trial
of evidence
cases are not
applicable
quasi-legislative agencies. Long
before
Beach
(264
496);
App.
Maltbie,
Gas Co. v.
36 N. Y. S. 2d 194
Div.
Montgomery County,
Western R. of Ala. v.
228 Ala. 426
(153 622);
England
Corp.,
S
In re New
Power
of a desirable go justify basis in evidence far as to orders without a not having so probative Mere uncorroborated rational force. hearsay constitute substantial or rumor does not the affidavits before the evidence.’ The introduction of error.” Commission the instant case was not the; We statements of the witnesses hold sworn opposition Greyhound’s the letters of the commuters application by the commission which were considered hearsay "[m]ere were not uncorroborated or rumor” and together furnished a sufficient basis for the commission to deny Greyhound’s application, especially since efficacy by tacitly acknowledged their responding no to the issues created them and made complaint these about the commission’s consideration of ancillary hearing. matters at the We have considered the urged by Greyhound issues find them to be without judgment sustaining court, merit. of the trial order, record. commission’s affirmed on change If future, in the is free circumstances pursue another before the commission subject to its rules. except Judgment concur, All the Justices affirmed.
Nichols, J., Hill, JJ., C. Jordan and who dissent. Argued January 19 November Decided 17, 7, Rehearing January denied 1976.
Gambrell, Russell, Forbes, Theodore M. Killorin & Douglas Campbell, appellant. Forbes, Jr., N. for Attorney Bolton, General, Arthur K. Harold D. Attorney appellees. Corlew, General, Assistant Staff dissenting. Justice, Hill, I dissent. granted
The trial court the Public Service summary judgment. Declaring Commission’s motion for unnecessary that it is to recite the evidence offered Greyhound, court affirms. this correctly
The court concludes that the trial court unreasonably, decided that the commission has not acted *5 arbitrarily capriciously in this conclusion is case. This reached of without consideration the. evidence offered Greyhound. support
The "evidence” in of the commission’s threepublic arguments conclusion consists ofthe sworn of appearing constituents, officials on behalf oftheir and two passengers saying from the Athens bus is undependable. The former is not evidence and latter is (one not relevant to dependable of the issue the need two buses commission). required bus could be This "evidence” is deemed sufficient this court to being reasonable, sustain the action of the commission as notwithstanding by Greyhound the evidence introduced performance bus, as to the on-time record of the Athens notwithstanding by Greyhound the evidence introduced that-, carry passengers desiring one bus will all the bus transportation between and Atlanta at the question, spare, times withstanding with seats and not- operating
the evidence that two buses ample where one is is uneconomic and a waste of fuel. which, intransigent policy The commission, today approves may this letters, court on the basis two public cause carriers to surrender their certificates public necessity altogether, convenience rather than litigate permission operate with the- commission for public economic schedules. The more from.no. suffer only having service than it will from the inconvenience of transportation passengers by one bus to ride. Will bus- so, follow the If' railroads? will not with the approval unanimous of this court I because dissent. I am authorized to state Chief Justice Nichols join
and Justice Jordan in this dissent.
30492. SMITH v. GARNER et al. Justice. Ingram, Superior Floyd County granted Court of summary judgment, on motion of the State Board of denying corpus appellant Corrections, habeas to. relief granted and this court an to review that