Opinion ID: 1574558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether it was reversible error to deny Green a hearing.

Text: ¶ 38. The Commission cited Commission Rule 11D, which allows for the dismissal of a complaint without a hearing if such a hearing is not necessary to the public interest or for the protection of substantial rights. Code Miss. R. XX-XXX-XXX. The Commission justified this by stating the following: (1) Cleary had explained the delay in sewer implementation, (2) Green had no direct and substantial interest in the subject matter, (3) Green had not alleged inadequate service, and (4) the Commission was not required to revoke the supplemental CCN if sewer construction did not begin in six months. The chancellor affirmed the Commission's ruling, using the same analysis. ¶ 39. The Commission is authorized, by a Commission rule (11D) and by statute, to dismiss a complaint without a hearing. See Code Miss. R. XX-XXX-XXX; Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-47 (Rev.2001). See also Arnold Line Water Ass'n v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 744 So.2d 246, 250 n. 2 (Miss. 1999). A hearing was not necessary in the public interest or for the protection of substantial rights. Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-47 (Rev.2001). Green's rights were not infringed by the lack of a hearing. As noted elsewhere, (1) the takings issue, as alleged in Green I, is now moot; and (2) the statutory notice requirements were satisfied. See Green I, 910 So.2d at 1030-31. The public interest would not have been served by granting Green a hearing, which would have been futile. We find that the Commission did not commit reversible error in denying Green a hearing.