529 A.2d 594 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1987
Opinion by
Acting Commerce Secretary Donald F. Mazziotti has filed a petition for review invoking both this Courts original and appellate jurisdiction, 42 Pa. C. S. §§761,
History of the Case
Incident to the Senate confirmation proceedings on his nomination for Secretary of Commerce, Mazziotti requested the advice and opinion of the Commission
Upon reflection after the meeting that he may have miscast his vote, Chairman Pancoast directed that a special Commission meeting take place on July 28, 1987.
Section 763 of the Judicial Code vests this Court with appellate jurisdiction of all final orders of certain government agencies. Section 761 of the Judicial Code delineates our original jurisdiction. Mazziotti characterizes his instant action as one in the nature of a writ of error, in mandamus, in the nature of a declaratory judgment and/or as an action in equity.
We turn now to the legal implications and our analysis and conclusion in respect thereto of the varied actions before us.
Original Jurisdiction
Examining initially the Commonwealths preliminary objection contesting this Courts original jurisdiction, we consider first whether Mazziotti has an adequate remedy in the administrative procedures of the Commission. Section 2.15 of Title 52 Pennsylvania Code states:
Any person may request within 15 days of service of the opinion that the Commission reconsider its opinion. The person requesting reconsideration should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reasons why the opinion requires reconsideration.
Mazziotti counters that this procedure is inadequate and not designed to handle admitted technical errors of the Commission. He asserts that this Court should exercise its original jurisdiction due to the egregiousness of
In Canonsburg General Hospital v. Department of Health, 492 Pa. 68, 422 A.2d 141 (1980), our Supreme Court stated that a party is precluded from challenging administrative decision-making through judicial review, by mandamus or otherwise, without first exhausting prescribed administrative remedies. Moreover, we are instructed that “courts should not presume futility in the administrative appeal; on the contrary, they should assume that the administrative process will, if given a chance, discover and correct its own errors’’ Id. at 74, 422 A.2d at 145 (emphasis added). Indeed, an action in mandamus will not lie where appropriate remedies exist. Valley Forge Racing Association, Inc. v. State Horse Racing Commission, 449 Pa. 292, 297 A.2d 823 (1972).
Following these instructions, this Chancellor concludes that this Court lacks original jurisdiction over this matter. The Commission is acting pursuant to a request for advice from Mazziotti. The Commission is not acting outside the scope of its authority or failing to proceed accordingly on the request. The preliminary objections are sustained.
Appellate Jurisdiction
Mazziotti has also invoked this Courts appellate jurisdiction in seeking relief from the Commissions action. A prerequisite for appellate review is the need for a final adjudication by an administrative agency. 42 Pa. C. S. §763.
Herein, the pleadings plainly indicate that the Commission has voted on two motions and has represented that an order and opinion reflecting those votes will be immediately forthcoming. Further, the Commission has given notice to Mazziotti that a reconsideration proce
Thus, Mazziottis invocation of our appellate jurisdiction is premature. No final administrative adjudication has been issued that would permit appellate review by this Court at this time. Hence, that part of the petition for review invoking our appellate jurisdiction is quashed, sua sponte, since it is not ripe for review. Berger v. Department of Environmental Resources, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 206, 400 A.2d 905 (1979); 1 G. Darlington, K. McKeon, D. Schuckers & K. Brown, Pennsylvania Appellate Practice §1502:2 at 328 (1986).
Conclusion
Herein, an important, independent administrative agency has voiced its desire to comply with its procedural rules to reconsider a decision it previously reached. Mazziotti claims that this relief will be untimely, inappropriate and further damage his reputation.
We are not unsympathetic to his concerns. Notwithstanding that, however, our authority is severely restrained. Canonsburg. Unless the totality of the equities and/or harm which will be suffered by the parties and the citizenry are demonstrably severe and immediate, this Court will not call upon its equitable powers in substitution for the prescribed procedure of an administrative agency. Moreover, the pursuit of administrative relief from the conduct of a reviewing agency must be so meaningless as to constitute a nullity and the question of law presented so important that a timely decision is mandated.
In its brief, the Commission indicates that it should be able to issue its opinion and reconsider this matter before the Senate reconvenes in late September. This
Finally, we must note that Mazziotti has not asserted that the Commission acted outside its jurisdiction or inconsistent with its regulations.
For these reasons, we deny Mazziottis application for special relief. The preliminary objections are sustained and the petition for review addressing this Courts original jurisdiction is dismissed. Mazziottis petition for review addressing our appellate jurisdiction is quashed.
Order
Petitioners application for special relief is denied.
The preliminary objections are sustained and the petition for review addressed to this Courts original jurisdiction is dismissed. Mazziottis petition for review addressed to this Courts appellate jurisdiction is quashed.
Stenographic costs incurred for the hearing held July 31, 1987, shall be borne by the petitioner.
Sections 1 to 13 of the Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883, 65 P.S. §§401-413.
65 P.S. §407(9)(i)(ii).