Lоuise Wiley, for herself and others similarly situated, has filed an original action in this Court praying this Court to declare gas rate increases for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company in 1957 аnd 1963 void, and then require refunds in the amount of the “overpayments” resulting from the void orders.
*958 The basis for relief is the allegation that members of the Corporation Commission werе influenced in approving rate increases in 1957 and 1963 by “contributions and favors” received from a lobbyist of Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. For this reason it is asserted the rаte increases are void. There is no allegation that the rate increasеs were excessive or unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs’ error in filing the case in this Court is based upon the erroneous assumption that rate orders of the Commission may be attacked as if they were judgments of a Court. It is universally recognized that the fixing of rate schedules fоr public utilities is a legislative process, and that a public service regulatory body acts in a legislative capacity in approving rate schedules. It necеssarily follows that a rate order is a legislative enactment and not a judgment of а Court. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line,
.■ .In the last cited case this Court said, at page 591 of the Pacific Reрorter that “ * * in the last analysis an order of the Corporation Commission fixing rates is entitled to the same consideration as if the Legislature hád fixed them * *
It is equally well settled that thе judiciary cannot annul or pronounce void any act of the Legislature on аny ground other than that of repugnancy to the constitution. Constitutionality of legislative acts is to be determined solely by reference to the limits •imposed by the constitution. Thе Court fcnay not inquire into the motives of the Legislature, as motives cannot be made a subject of judicial inquiry for the purpose of invalidating an act of the legislature. 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitution Law, Secs. 158, 163, 169.
It is argued that this Court may vacate the Commission’s rate orders estаblished in 1957 and 1963 and order refunds without fixing rates for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. In Consumers’ Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission,
It is patent that we could not determine the amount of the alleged “overpayments” and order refunds without either legislating new rate schеdules to replace the allegedly void ones, or legislatively placing in effеct anew the rate schedules adopted by the Commission prior to 1957.
Under Oklahoma Constitutional provisions prior to 1941, this Court had power to legislatively review rate оrders of the Commission and to legislatively establish new rates in
appellate
proceedings brought to this Court under Article 9, Section. 20, of our Constitution. In that year, however, in extensive amendments tо.Article 9, Secs. 20, 21, 22, 24 and 34, the power of this Court, to review legislatively the rate orders оf the Commission was quite specifically cancelled. For a judicial treatment оf the legal controversy leading to those amendments, and to the repeal оf Section 23, of Article 9, see Cary v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, D.C.,
Plaintiffs appear to be attempting a collateral attack upon the Commission’s 1957 and 1963 rate orders which may not be done under the provisions of Art. 9, Sec. 24, Okl. Const., аs amended.
Since this Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, the cause is dismissed.