*1 petitioner in the exercise of its discretion. That is what the trial court did here. The appointed court the PLCP to petitioner’s examine case represent and to him on habeas if the PLCP determined that such a proceeding would be meritorious. That is not appointment right; counsel as of it is an exercise of discretion. There being no discretion, showing abuse of I would affirm the trial court. 36237. RAMEY v. KENNEDY et al.

Judgment opinion affirmed without under Rule No. 59 of this court.

All the Justices concur. May 16,

Submitted Elrod,

Craig & Elrod, Jack T. for appellant. G. HughelHarrison, Glyndon Pruitt, C. PaulKesmodel, Jr., W. appellees. 36297. HARWELL v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. Chief Justice. Undercofler,

Certiorari in this case singular to determine the issue of whether Georgia Company by Power is authorized statutes of this State to simple. condemn real brought proceeding title in fee gain by appellant unencumbered to 71.768 acres of land owned pursuant “Special 387; 1967, Master Act” 36-601a) property upon of acquiring hydro-electric which to construct a facility generating licensed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and which would produce electricity public. to be sold to the description detailed facility is Appeals decision, contained Ga. (1980), and will not repeated here. After a hearing, acquisition Master found that of a then entered necessary. The trial interest The Court prior decision the statutes and Appeals, applying correctly has stated the law Appeals think the Court affirmed. We and affirm. (Code Law, 1897, p. 68 provisions

Under utilities such as *2 36-801), corporate legislature granted electricity by water or steam Company, generate which Power “ cities, supplying towns or or lighting to be used for the lines, supplying light, street car or heat or motive to railroad or right purchase, . . . the lease or condemn public, to the over the lands of others in order to rights-of-way or other easements dams, wires, flow backwater or for other uses run lines of maintain necessary paying just compensation first purposes, to said Thus, the 1897 the land to be affected.” under owner of body powers of condemning exercising Power is defined as a eminent domain. in Ann. that provides Code 36-603a body necessary

“whenever it shall for such to take or private any or interest or easement therein” the damage property, condemning body petition superior having jurisdiction can in property, “condemning for a said the same simple.” fee ample authority We think the Master Act is power company it can show a whenever public purpose necessity. appellant and While the contends that the issue is a utility whether a is authorized to condemn impression has been first we think issue 396, 398 previously decided 236 Appeals. cited as Although with title to dealt

Georgia Department Transportation highway project for a later abandoned, we held that case that provided legal additional basis that the interest DOT has taken originally

It is of interest to note that the Master Act as (Ga. 1957, p. 387), enacted in meaning limited the “condemning” Georgia, any bodies to the State of or branch of the government or any county, municipality, of the State of or other political legislature subdivision of the State. The amended the to add as housing (Ga 1967, p. condemning bodies. second amendment in 1967 other corporations possessing added “all firms and or of eminent domain...” It must be concluded that the amendment was to vest intent legislative electricity public with the supply which companies public purposes subject provided in the act. statutory procedures protective S. All the Justices and Frank Judgment affirmed. Bowles, J., Cheatham, Jr., Hill, J., dissents. concur, except who disqualified.

Argued June Peek, Jr., Peek, J. Corbett James Garland appellant. Edwards, Kothe, M. Kirk Quillian, Karl J. Robert R. appellee. Justice, dissenting.

Hill, 36-801) 1897, p. 68; gave The Act of 1897 Code other rights-of-way electric utilities to “condemn easements.” That act utilities the give did electric *3 condemn land fee simple.1

The 1967, here is whether the 1967 amendment 825) p. authorizing persons, “all other firms corporations possessing the of power eminent domain” to utilize the Act, 1957, Master p. 387; seq., 36-601a et power increased the corporations of all such firms or to property condemn they only where the previously had power to condemn a lesser interest.

The 1957 grant anyone did not the of eminent merely “prescribe domain. It procedure an additional [d] for 1957, the exercise of the of eminent domain” act) see already also section granted the to the state and its Co., Pipe-Line In Botts v. political Southeastern subdivisions. (10 Ga. 689 petroleum this court held that a pipeline company which had not been the power of eminent domain did not acquire such an amendment authorizing petroleum pipeline companies utilize a condemnation procedural statute.

As (relied City supra upon by the delegating derogation 1Because statutes the eminent domain are rights citizens, strictly of our such EGL statutes are construed. 10 Domain, (1979). Eminent 4§ already out, Atlanta had City pointed expressly majority), facilities limited access in fee Sadtler, Ga. 1955, 559, 236 Ga. at pp. 562. of a 1955 by virtue Ga. at paragraph The “Furthermore” is, in Sadtler. That here, surplusage majority relied v. Botts Southeastern Moreover, it was erroneous dicta. it dicta. Co., erroneous dicta here elevate that Pipe-Line supra. majority this state every condemning holding applicable to to a which heretofore (whether quasi-public/private) public, private or by statute the given not to condemn but was had a limited leap, Kneivel from In one Evil power to condemn gives all holding, majority erroneous dicta into a use the only not simple. my In view but also the procedurally new Assembly creating a of the General that was not the intent condemnation, Act, nor its intent procedure, Master (Ga. L. procedure” “special it master when amended in this condemning authorities remaining and added all state. decision, 50-year federal license the of this under a

As a result land Company will be allowed to condemn project but operate only hydroelectric pump storage a rentals, areas, (picnic boat concession Disneyland campers also a etc.) trails, areas, centers, areas, hiking camping parks, fishing trailer on the sites, shop store and a craft including general trailer (see master report special of the property being supra). 154 Ga. quoted Next, by this authority granted will use the it Mableton acquire Flags Act to Six Over Special. court under Master I therefore dissent. Georgia. *4 DEMOCRATIC COUNTY v. PAULDING

36623. GROGAN et al. COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE Per curiam. filed complaint his the dismissal Grogan appeals Perry Paulding County and Paulding the Probate sought he in which Committee Executive County Democratic Sheriff office of a candidate him to become allowing order primary. 5, 1980, Democratic August during the County Paulding