Opinion ID: 1121240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis of c&c's standing

Text: The main thrust of C&C's opposition to Hawaiian Telephone's motion to dismiss C&C's appeal is to the effect that because the legislature provided separate definitions of a person and of a party, and because of the provisions of HRS § 91-14 (a), C&C is not required to be a party or participant in the hearing before the PUC to be entitled to a judicial review of the PUC's final decision and order. We disagree with C&C's stand. HRS § 91-14(a), which provides [a]ny person aggrieved by a final decision and order in a contested case ... is entitled to judicial review ..., is clear and unambiguous that the person aggrieved must have been involved in the contested case before the PUC. HRS § 91-14(a) does not provide simply that any person aggrieved by a final decision and order is entitled to a judicial review. If the legislature intended to give any person aggrieved by a final decision and order, regardless of whether the person participated in a contested case, the right to judicial review, the legislature would have so stated. Where the terms of a statute are plain, unambiguous and explicit, the courts are not at liberty to go outside of the language to search for a meaning which does not reasonably bear to the terms of the statute. Apokaa Sugar Co. v. Wilder, 21 Haw. 571 (1913); Hawaiian Beaches, Inc. v. Kondo, 52 Haw. 279, 474 P.2d 538 (1970). The definitions of the phrases contested case and agency hearing in HRS § 91-1 make it amply clear that the strained interpretation made by C&C of HRS § 91-14(a) is untenable. Furthermore, ample provision for notice to the public and subscribers of the utility for any rate hearing before the PUC is provided in HRS § 91-9 and HRS § 269-16. C&C has raised other grounds to sustain its appeal but they are dismissed as being without merit. With the above opinion and the C&C having failed to comport with the prescribed administrative procedures of the PUC, the motion to dismiss C&C's appeal is granted. Leopold v. Public Utilities Commission, No. 5255, Sup.Ct. of Hawaii (Feb. 2, 1972); East Diamond Head Association v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 52 Haw. 518, 479 P.2d 796 (1971).