IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

In the Matter of the Application of 

O.J. Galt, Stanford, Montana, for 

Authority to Sell Certificate of 

Public Convenience No. 1390, Sub. A, 

To Marvin E.Mintyala d/b/a City 

Garage and Mr. "M" Disposal, 

Lewistown, Montana. 

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lewis and Clark 

Hon. Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

William E. O'Leary argued, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Alexander and Baucus, Great Falls, Montana 

Neil Ugrin argued, Great Falls, Montana 

Rob Smith, PSC, Helena, Montana 

Submitted: December 3, 1981 

~ecided: January 21, 1982 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Appellants, 0. J. Galt and Marvin E. Mintyala appeal from 

an order of the First Judicial District, entered October 15, 

1980. This order affirmed a previous order of August 1, 

1980, which declared that Class "D" Certificate No. 1390(A) 

issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC) to 0. J. Galt 

on November 18, 1977, was null and void for all purposes. 

On May 15, 1936, the PSC granted Galt a Class "C" 

Certificate, No. 1390, authorizing motor transport of 

"property" in the town of Stanford, Montana, and within a 

70-mile radius. This certificate was issued pursuant to 

section 3847.2, R.C.M., 1935 (recodified as section 8-102, 

R.C.M., 1947), of the Montana Motor Carriers Act. 

In 1977, section 8-102, R.C.M., 1947 (section 69-12- 

301, MCA), was amended to include an additional classification of motor carrier, Class "D," for the transportation and 

disposal of garbage, waste and refuse. The legislature also 

enacted a new provision, section 8-102.1, R.C.M., 1947 

(never codified in MCA). This was an implementation section 

providing that: 

"All Class D motor carriers, whether property 

carriers or otherwise, who have conducted a 

motor carrier transportation service for hire 

utilizing motor vehicle equipment and appropriate disposal sites consistent with the 

laws of this state and rules of the commission 

and the department of health and environmental 

sciences shall, upon written proof consisting 

of prior business records reflecting a transportation service for 1 year prior to the 

effective date of this act, which business 

records shall be submitted to the commission 

in an informal manner, receive a certificate 

of public convenience and necessity as a Class 

D carrier authorizing transportation of the 

above-described commodities within the geographical area described in the written proof 

submitted. Such proof must be submitted to 

the commission within 4 months following the 
effective date of this act; and the commission shall issue such Class D certificates 

within an additional 90 days, and thereafter, 

no Class A, B, or C carrier will be authorized or permitted to transport ashes, trash, 

waste, refuse, rubbish, garbage, or organic 

and inorganic matter within the State of Montana." 

In response to this provision, the PSC mailed a form to 

certificate holders to determine whether the holder desired 

to haul garbage and if so, requesting business records 

establishing past transportation of garbage. 

Galt answered the PSC on the form provided, stating 

that he did want to haul garbage. Galt listed five business 

names on the letter as a response to the requested business 

records. No business records were supplied. 

On November 18, 1977, the PSC issued Galt Class "D" 

Certificate No. 1390(A), authorizing transportation of 

garbage in the same geographical area as the prior Class "C" 

certificate, i.e., the town of Stanford and a 70-mile radius. 

On May 3, 1978, Galt applied to the PSC for authority 

to transfer the Class "D" Certificate to Marvin Mintyala. 

The application was noticed and a June 7, 1978 deadline set 

for protests. On June 5, 1978, F. L. Green, owner of a 

certificate to haul garbage in Great Falls and a 10-mile 

radius thereof, joined by the Palagis who proposed to buy 

the Green certificate, filed a protest with the PSC on the 

grounds that the Galt certificate conflicted with the Green 

operating area. A hearing was set for September 7, 1978. 

On September 5, 1978, Green and Palagis filed a motion 

to quash the hearing and any further proceedings on the Galt 

transfer, and a motion to invalidate Galt's Class "D" certificate. Both motions were made on the ground that Galt had 

not complied with section 8-102.1, R.C.M., 1947, supra, with 

regard to the filing of prior business records to support 
the application. 

 he hearing was held on September 7, 1978. The PSC 

subsequently issued order No. 2657, declaring the Galt 

certificate null and void as to points beyond the municipal 

limits of Stanford, Montana. Galt was granted time to 

submit proof, via business records, reflecting garbage 

transportation for one year prior to July 1, 1977 (the 

effective date of section 8-102.1, R.C.M., 1947). Galt's 

proposed transfer was held in abeyance. 

Galt filed a motion for reconsideration of this order 

with the PSC on January 15, 1979. Reconsideration was 

granted. After reconsideration, the PSC issued Order No. 

2657a granting authority to transfer the Galt certificate to 

Mintyala. This order was issued on November 27, 1979. 

On December 10, 1979, the Palagis (to whom F. L. Green 

had sold his business and transferred his Class "D" certificate with PSC approval on February 2, 1979) filed a petition 

for judicial review and a motion to temporarily stay the 

transfer of the Galt certificate. The stay was granted. 

The First Judicial District Court declared the Galt 

Class "D" Certificate No. 1390(A) to be null and void for 

all purposes. 

Issues presented on appeal are: 

(1) Whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction to 

review the issuance of the Galt Class "D" Certificate? 

(2) Whether the Galt Class "D" Certificate issued by 

the PSC on November 18, 1977, is void? 

(3) Whether the order of the District Court deprives 

Galt and Mintyala of due process of law? 

(4) Whether the District Court usurped the authority 

of the PSC to cancel motor carrier certificates? 
(5) Whether the District Court erred in granting a 

permanent stay against the proposed transfer of the Galt 

Class "D" Certificate? 

We find issues one and two to be dispositive of this 

appeal. 

Appellants, Galt and Mintyala, contend that the District 

Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the validity of the Galt 

Class "D" Certificate for two reasons. First, the implementation provision, section 8-102.1, R.C.M., 1947, contains a 

seven month timetable beginning July 1, 1977, and ending on 

January 31, 1978. Galt and Mintyala argue that section 2-4- 

702, MCA, a provision of the Montana Administrative Procedure 

Act, required appeals relating to certificates issued pursuant 

to section 8-102.1, R.C.M., 1947, to be perfected within 30 

days of the termination of the seven month time limitation. 

Galt and Mintyala contend that since no such action was 

taken within the 30 day period beginning January 31, 1978, 

the validity of the certificate could not later be raised 

before and decided by the District Court. 

Secondly, Galt and Mintyala argue that the sole issue 

before the PSC regarding the proposed transfer of the Galt 

Class "D" Certificate was the fitness of Mintyala to operate 

under that certificate. All testimony received by the PSC 

at the hearing on September 7, 1978, related only to the 

fitness of Mintyala. Galt and Mintyala argue that, as a 

result of the limited nature of this hearing, the only issue 

that the District Court could properly review on appeal was 

Mintyala's fitness. 

Both contentions are without merit. Section 2-4-702, 

MCA, relating to appeals from administrative decisions, 

pertains to the initiation of judicial review in contested 
cases. The certificate issuing process conducted by the PSC 

with regard to this new Class "D" Certificate did not constitute 

a contested case. Therefore, the 30-day appeal limitation 

contained in section 2-4-702 (2) (a) , did not apply to the 

issuance of the Galt Class "D" Certificate and the District 

Court was not precluded jurisdiction to decide the validity 

of that certificate when the issue was raised at a later 

date. 

Section 2-4-702 (1) (b) , MCA, provides that a ". . . 

party may not raise any other question not raised before the 

agency . . ." A review of the record clearly establishes 

that the issue of the validity of the Galt Class "D" Certificate 

was raised before the PSC prior to the hearing on September 

7, 1978, was taken under advisement by the PSC, was thoroughly 

briefed by counsel for all parties, and was, in fact, the 

basis for the original PSC decision in the matter. The 

validity question plainly was raised before the PSC and 

became an issue which could be heard and decided by the 

District Court upon judicial review. The District Court did 

not exceed its scope of judicial review. 

The issue of the validity of the Galt Class "D" Certificate, hinges upon the requirements set forth in the implementation provision, section 8-102.1, R.C.M., 1947. This statute 

required submission of ". . . written proof consisting of 

prior business records reflecting a transportation service 

for one year prior to the effective date of this act (~uly 

1, 1977) . . ." These records were to be submitted in an 

informal manner within four months of July 1, 1977. Upon 

completion of this requirement parties received ". . . a 

certificate of public convenience and necessity as a class 
"D" carrier authorizing transportation of the above-described 

commodities within the geographical area described in the 

proof submitted." 

To implement this statute, the PSC mailed a form to 

motor carriers. Galt returned his form completed as follows: 

II NAME : 

ADDRESS : 

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 

AUTHORITY NO: 

"IV. Are you presently operating under the certificate issued 

to you by the Montana Public Service Commission (this 

means each and every certificate)? 

YES 

"1II.If you do NOT intend to actively participate in garbage 

hauling we will restrict your current Class C and/or B 

authority against transporting garbage. 

I do NOT - want to transport garbage. Do not 

issue me Class D authority. You may restrict 

my current certificate(s) against transportation 

of garbage. 

I DO want to transport garbage. Listed below 

arebusiness records proving that I have 

hauled or attempted to haul garbage. 

Pump Bar 

Lyle's Bar 

Presbyterian Church 

Galt' s Hardware 

Galt's Garage 

"We haul for anyone who wants us to but most people here 

haul their own now. In past years we hauled for all the 

businesses & a lot of the local people. 

"IN ANY EVENT (REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CHECK ABOVE), SUBMIT 

THE APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATE(S) OR AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT 

IT HAS BEEN LOST, BY NOVEMBER 1, 1977. 

"Oliver J. Galt 

Certificate Holder" 
On the basis of this answer, the PSC issued Galt Class "DM 

Certificate No. 1390(A), authorizing transportation of 

garbage in Stanford and a 70-mile radius thereof. 

We hold that this answer submitted by Galt did not 

sufficiently comply with the requirements of section 8- 

102.1, R.C.M., 1947. The listing of five business names 

without designation of location, service provided, or dates 

of service clearly is not the submission of business records 

required by the statute. Admittedly, the statute called for 

informal submission, but Galt's answer fails to achieve the 

status of even informal response. The failure to comply 

with section 8-102.1, R.C.M., 1947, necessitates a finding 

that Class "D" Certificate No. 1390(A), issued by the PSC on 

November 18, 1977, is void. 

In accordance with the foregoing opinion, the judgment 

of the District Court is affirmed. 

We Concur: 

~~49, W,@ Chief Justice