Opinion ID: 2061276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The availability of certiorari.

Text: The permissions which Edison sought and was refused are authorized under G.L.c. 166, §§ 21 and 22. Since electricity is a State regulated public utility under G.L.cc. 164 and 166, certain permissions must be obtained prior to the erection of power lines. There is no particular order in which these permissions are to be obtained. Sudbury v. Department of Pub. Util. 351 Mass. 214, 224 (the second Sudbury case). See Sudbury v. Department of Pub. Util. 343 Mass. 428 (the first Sudbury case). Section 21 of c. 166 provides that [a] company incorporated for the transmission of ... electricity ... may... construct lines for such transmission ... across the public ways ... but such company shall not incommode the public use of public ways or endanger or interrupt navigation. Section 22 required the company (Edison) to petition the selectmen of the several communities where the street crossings were contemplated. Under that section public hearings were held after which the selectmen were empowered by order [to] grant ... a location for such line. It is their refusal to do so that Edison seeks to quash by certiorari. Although certiorari is provided for by G.L.c. 249, § 4, its origins are in the common law, and the requirements which give it life were stated in Swan v. Superior Court, 222 Mass. 542, 544. Speaking of the writ, the court said, Its common purpose is the beneficent one of enabling a party who has no remedy by appeal, exception, or other mode of correcting errors of law committed against his rights in a proceeding judicial or quasi judicial, to bring the true record, properly extended so as to show the principles of decision, before a higher court for examination as to material mistakes of law. Its appropriate function is to relieve aggrieved parties from the injustice arising from errors of law committed in proceedings affecting their justifiable rights when no other means of relief are open. It always has been recognized as a highly remedial salutary procedure, founded upon a sense of justice, to relieve against wrongs otherwise irremediable. See Gifford v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 328 Mass. 608, 619, and cases cited. Therefore, the requisite elements for availability of certiorari are (1) a judicial or quasi judicial proceeding; (2) a lack of all other reasonably adequate remedies; and (3) a substantial injury or injustice arising from the proceeding under review.
In the hearings on the Edison petitions the selectmen in each instance under the statute were called upon to exercise judgment and discretion. In each of the three towns hearings were held where opposing points of view were presented. We may refer by analogy to the State Administrative Procedure Act, G.L.c. 30A, which, while it does not apply to actions by towns, defines in § 1 an adjudicatory proceeding as a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specifically named persons are required by constitutional right or by any provision of the General Laws to be determined after opportunity for an agency hearing. See Cambridge v. Railroad Commrs. 153 Mass. 161, 169-170 (the order of the Board of Railroad Commissioners for a city to construct an overpass was quasi judicial); New York Cent. R.R. v. Department of Pub. Works, 354 Mass. 332, 333-335 (a decision not to allow a requested grade crossing was in an adjudicatory proceeding). That the selectmen may exercise some ministerial function does not mean that their proceedings concerning the Edison petitions are not adjudicatory. Sudbury and Wayland rely most heavily on Locke v. Selectmen of Lexington, 122 Mass. 290, a case which is not persuasive. There the court said, The selectmen of a town are not a court, and, independently of the St. of 1873, c. 214, exercise no judicial functions which could be revised by writ of certiorari; but only powers which are purely executive or ministerial.... The exception cited by the court, however, is a statute which provides for a hearing similar to that provided for in c. 166, § 22, and the case would seem to support the position that the hearings before the selectmen were indeed in adjudicatory proceedings.
Certiorari lies only where the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies. Jordan Marsh Co. v. Labor Relations Commn. 312 Mass. 597. Saint Luke's Hosp. v. Labor Relations Commn. 320 Mass. 467, 469-470, and cases cited. Marshall v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 324 Mass. 468, 471. Edison argues that review by the Department of Public Utilities (Department) is foreclosed because the case does not fulfill the requirements of G.L.c. 166, § 28, where an electric company denied the right to cross public ways may apply to the Department. In such an instance the Department is empowered to overrule the selectmen if the utility has already been granted road crossings and has accepted them in a majority of the towns through which the lines may pass or in two adjoining municipalities. Otherwise the Department is powerless to overrule the selectmen. The towns do not assert that Edison has fulfilled the conditions of the statute but rather that it is only the Department which can decide after a hearing whether or not Edison has. On this point the prevailing view in other jurisdictions is that where an administrative agency cannot afford relief resort to the agency is not required. See 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 605. The futility apparent in the application of the statute makes such resort to the administrative agency unnecessary. United States v. Knox, 128 U.S. 230, 234. Carter v. Bluefield, 132 W. Va. 881, 892. This doctrine in our view should be applicable where a threshold question will render application to an administrative body futile, for reasons of judicial efficiency if for no others. There is little to be gained by forcing Edison to a § 28 proceeding where the Department obviously can afford no suitable relief. C. Was substantial injury or injustice incurred by Edison by reason of the action of the selectmen? Edison claims substantial injury, to which the towns reply that Edison has no private right in the public ways  the use of which is a privilege and the revocation of which use gives rise to no injury. The argument of the towns in this regard is concerned with the distinction between right and privilege, which has been under attack in recent years. See Van Alstyne, The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1439. Moreover, the Legislature acting under c. 166, § 21, which grants the rights in the public streets and a local board of selectmen which denies access to them are not the same. Therefore, it is not a question of the simple revocation of privilege by the body which created it but rather the denial of that privilege in adjudication by another body. As the court said in Weld v. Board of Gas & Elec. Light Commrs. 197 Mass. 556, 557, It [the gas and electric company] enjoys public rights in the streets, which are derived from the Commonwealth, through action of the board of aldermen under authority of the Legislature. See Cheney v. Barker, 198 Mass. 356, 365-367 (mandamus may be had against a board of aldermen to permit opening a street). It would therefore appear that Edison does have an interest in the use of the streets which has been adversely affected by the decision of the selectmen. It is also argued against Edison that before constructing its lines it needs permission from the Federal government to cross a wildlife reservation and must obtain permission from the towns in exception of their zoning by-laws. Neither of these will be forthcoming, say the towns, and thus no damage will result from denying crossing rights and certiorari does not lie. We must therefore decide whether there is a sufficient possibility of obtaining the remaining permissions that the selectmen's decision, if not quashed, will substantially injure Edison. If the possibility exists that they will be obtained then Edison is injured in that it would be compelled to return later to this court with resulting expense and loss of time. In the interests once more of judicial efficiency it would seem that the possibility of later success on applications need not be very high to permit us to decide a case already briefed and argued on the merits. It is claimed that the letter from the Secretary of the Interior is conclusive that Edison will not be allowed to cross Federal land. We do not so read the letter. It says in part, [W]e would not grant easements for running overhead lines over a part of the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge if doing so would significantly impair natural values, including scenery, or be inconsistent with the action of local government. We interpret this as establishing the possibility that the Department of Interior might grant permission for overhead lines if it decided such lines would not impair natural values. Even if the letter were unequivocal, 16 U.S.C. § 664 (1964) indicates that decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior are administrative and subject to judicial review under Pub. Law (89th Cong.) 89-554, 80 Stat. 392, 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Supp. II, 1966). It is impossible to prognosticate the outcome of such a review but that it exists suggests that it is less than clear that the necessary permission cannot be obtained from the Department of the Interior. Ergo, there remains a substantial possibility of injury. On the argument proffered by the towns that the selectmen under their own zoning by-laws were prohibited from granting Edison's petitions and, hence, there is no injury, it remains only to say that permissions to avoid such by-laws are obtainable from the Department under G.L.c. 40A, § 10, where in fact such permissions have already been obtained, although they too are being judicially challenged. Lastly, the town of Concord argues that a preexisting but expired contract between Edison and itself required that wires be placed underground, and that, plus Edison's prior practice of putting wires underground, means requiring it to do so would not result in injury to Edison. This argument is obviously fallacious. We conclude, therefore, that the requirements for certiorari are fulfilled, and we proceed to a consideration of the substantive questions raised.