Opinion ID: 1574558
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Grant of a Supplemental CCN in 2000.

Text: ¶ 20. The chancellor found that Green was not appealing the grant of the supplemental CCN, but if he had been, his appeal would have been time-barred. Thirteen of the fourteen issues brought to this Court by Green deal with the Commission's 2000 grant of the supplemental CCN. His attorney argued in his chancery court brief that the court had jurisdiction to revoke the supplemental CCN. Thus, Green is attempting to appeal the supplemental CCN decision by way of appealing the Commission's orders in 2005. However, the chancellor correctly found that the court was without jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Mississippi Code Section 77-3-67(1) (Rev.2001) requires an appeal of an order of the Commission to be filed within thirty days of the order. Id. Green's appeal was filed more than four years after the order granting the supplemental CCN. This Court has stated, Where an appeal is not perfected within the statutory time constraints no jurisdiction is conferred on the appellate court; and the untimely action should be dismissed. Bowen v. DeSoto County Bd. of Supervisors, 852 So.2d 21, 23 (Miss.2003) (citing Newell v. Jones County, 731 So.2d 580 (1999)). See also Dependents of Townsend v. Dyer Woodturnings, Inc., 459 So.2d 300, 302 (Miss. 1984) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; notice of appeal not timely submitted to a state commission). ¶ 21. Further, as Green was not a party to the grant of the supplemental CCN, he may not appeal from that decision. See Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-67(1) (Rev.2001) (any party aggrieved by any final finding, order or judgment of the commission ... shall have the right ... of appeal to the chancery court); see also In re Appeal of Final Decision of Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 604 So.2d 218, 219-22 (Miss.1992) (appeal by electricity customers dismissed, as they had not properly intervened to become parties to a rate-setting decision). This Court has held that `statutes which allow a party to appeal, as a rule, limit the right to those who were original parties to the action or proceeding.' Id. at 222 (quoting Ridgway v. Scott, 237 Miss. 400, 405, 114 So.2d 844, 845 (1959)). ¶ 22. Green argues that the appeal deadline in Mississippi Code Section 77-3-67 is inapplicable because the notice did not give him fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. Miss. Power Co. v. Goudy, 459 So.2d 257, 263, 271 (Miss. 1984) (the Commission's rate-approval procedure survived constitutional challenge). Green does not deny that notice was made in accordance with the statute, but claims that notice was inadequate because it did not inform him that a decentralized system would be implemented. The applicable notice statute requires the following: The commission shall fix the time and place of hearings and shall serve notice thereof, not less than twenty (20) days before the time set for such hearings.... Notice of all such hearings shall be given the persons interested therein by mailing such notice to each public utility which may be affected by any order resulting therefrom and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation published in Jackson, Mississippi, and, in a proceeding for a facility certificate or an area certificate, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or counties where the facility or area is located. Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-47 (Rev.2001). It is undisputed that the Commission filed a timely notice in The Clarion-Ledger, a newspaper published in Jackson and of general circulation in the City of Jackson and in Rankin County. The remaining cases cited by Green on this issue all are clearly distinguishable. ¶ 23. The Commission found that Green was attempting to impose a notice requirement (the type of sewer to be utilized) beyond that required by statute. See Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-47 (Rev.2001). The statute does not require such notice. Green was notified of the planned implementation of the decentralized sewer system, not at the time of the expansion of the certificated area, but the next year when Cleary adopted the ordinance. Cleary published notice concerning the adoption of the ordinance, and then passed the ordinance after a public hearing at which no one expressed opposition. Green I, 910 So.2d at 1025. ¶ 24. Green's central complaint is that Cleary pulled a bait and switch on him and the other petitioners, by claiming it would construct a sewer system for the area, while having no intent to do so. Cleary's manager said in a newspaper article as early as 2002 that the decentralized sewer system was not something we did overnight. This was two or three years in the making. Cleary's manager also said that a centralized system would cost approximately $17,000 per home. The allegations against Cleary are of no event, for, even if the chancellor had granted them credence, they do not alter the fact that the appeal was untimely filed.