Court Opinion

ID: 9725965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:23:28.648616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:21.941923
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION

Myers, J.
I dissent from the opinion of the majority of the members of this court participating in this cause, and submit the following opinion as the reasons therefor.
This is an appeal pursuant to statute from an order of the Public Service Commission of Indiana entered on January 24, 1958, in a proceeding originally commenced before the Commission by appellant, Indiana Telephone Corporation, wherein it petitioned for authority to increase its telephone rates and charges.
Appellant is an Indiana corporation, with its main business office in the City of Seymour, Indiana. It owned and operated in the southern part of the State of Indiana intrastate telephone property consisting of *34343 exchanges, with approximately 33,862 subscriber stations, and a telephone toll system serving its subscribers and the public generally. The toll system connected most of appellant’s exchanges and interconnected with other telephone companies doing business in the State of Indiana. It was an independent company and not a part of any other telephone system.
On July 17, 1956, appellant filed its verified petition with the Commission wherein it stated that it had received its last general rate increase in 1947, and that these rates and charges did not provide sufficient revenue to pay operating expenses and a fair return on the fair value of its property. It asked for an order by the Commission granting new rates, charges and tariffs.
There was a public hearing before the Commission which commenced on September 26, 1956. At the conclusion of the hearing dates were fixed for field hearings in the cities of Madison, Scottsburg and Jasper, Indiana, on petitions and supplemental petitions filed by subscribers to appellant’s telephone system in Dubois and Scott counties, and by the Taxpayers’ League of Madison, Indiana. Public field hearings were held by the Commission in each of those cities.
On January 11, 1957, the Commission entered an order in which it summarized the evidence heard and the exhibits entered in the hearings and specifically found that the existing rates and charges of the appellant were not sufficient to provide a fair return of and on the fair value of the property of appellant used and useful in rendering telephone service, and that such rates and charges should be increased so as to produce additional net income annually in the amount of $853,500. Because of the burden of federal and state tax on income, the Commission found that the amount of the increase in gross operating revenue required to *344produce the stated net amount would be $744,000. It further authorized certain improvements, replacements and additions, finding, however, that service being rendered was “reasonably adequate.” The rate increase was ordered in accordance with the findings, and appellant was directed to file its study of its present rates and proposed rates and charges, and upon approval thereof to file a complete schedule calculated to produce the increased revenue with the Tariff Department of the Commission.
On January 15, 1957, the appellant filed with the Accounting Department of the Commission a study of proposed rates and charges. The study was approved, and on January 16, 1957, a schedule of rates and charges for local exchange service and miscellaneous service was filed with the Tariff Department. The rates and charges were to become effective February 1, 1957, subject to certain exceptions which were set forth in the order.
On January 31, 1957, the Taxpayers' League of Madison filed with the Commission a petition for rehearing wherein it was stated that the League was composed of more than ten subscribers of appellant’s telephone service in Madison; that the rates which were to be placed in effect in Madison and two other cities were unfair as being excessive and were approved without evidence as to reasonableness and justice of the rates applicable to those subscribers; that the Commission took into consideration factors which were improper, unlawful and unjust and fixed the increase in rates by including such factors.
Appellant filed an answer to this petition on February 11, 1957, wherein it denied those charges. Oral argument was held by the Commission on the petition for rehearing on February 15, 1957.
*345On March 5, 1957, the Commission issued an order in which it granted the petition for rehearing as prayed, after finding that it was in the best interest of the public for the Commission to hear additional evidence, and that the petition should be approved and a rehearing instituted.
On March 19, 1957, the Commission issued an amended order finding that the order of March 5, 1957, “is or may be ambiguous and not clear as to its intent and meaning.” It deleted the findings and order therein and substituted therefor the following order:
“The Commission having heard the arguments of counsel and having examined the exhibits and file of the Commission and being duly advised in the premises now finds:
“1. That it is to the best interest of the public that the Commission hear additional evidence in said cause covering the increase of rates and charges for all of the exchanges owned and operated by Indiana Telephone Corporation.
“2. That a rehearing of said case should be instituted covering all matters contained in the order of the Commission in this cause and dated January 11, 1957.
“3. That the order entered into in this cause on January 11, 1957, continue in effect pending said rehearing and further order of the Commission.
“It Is Therefore Ordered by the Public Service Commission of Indiana that Cause No. 26794 be opened for rehearing on all matters contained in the order of this Commission in said cause and dated January 11, 1957.
“It Is Further Ordered that a date be fixed for said hearing and that notice be given as provided by law.
“It Is Further Ordered that the Order entered in this cause on January 11, 1957, continue in effect pending said rehearing.”
*346The rehearing commenced on September 30, 1957. A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which had been filed by appellant was overruled, and thereafter the cause was submitted and evidence was heard.
On January 24, 1958, the Commission entered its finding and order. In part, this order was explanatory of the action which the Commission finally took. In brief, the Commission stated that there were two major types of telephone service with which it was concerned in the proceedings. One type was local exchange service and the other type was message toll telephone service. The latter was divided into two classes, namely, (1) intrastate message toll and (2) interstate message toll service. The intrastate toll service and local exchange service fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission, while the interstate toll service is nationwide in scope and the rates charged are fixed by the Federal Communications Commission. The order went on to say that there had been testimony regarding the toll service, both interstate and intrastate, and the revenues derived therefrom. The evidence showed that there had been a proportionate increase in both toll and service calls. The Commission further stated that in order to fix rates there would have to be sufficient information detailed to enable the Commission to determine, first, the cost of service related to the property under its jurisdiction, and, second, the cost of service rendered to the two broad classes of intrastate service, namely, local exchange and message toll. The Commission went on to say that it could not determine the reasonableness of the proposed rates without pertinent information before it to determine the cost and value of this service. It stated as follows:
“To determine whether rates charged are too high for the service rendered or whether they are *347unfair, unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory is an impossible task on the basis of the information introduced into the record, since to do so requires the allocation of plant and expenses to the various services.
“The Company must show and justify the various items of costs and the return on the property upon the various classes of service.”
The order then proceeded to relate that during the rehearing proceedings counsel for appellant were admonished to present evidence regarding revenues, expenses and property which were to be separated between intrastate toll rates and local service rates in order for the Commission to fairly arrive at a rate of return. The reason for giving this admonition, according to the Commission’s statement made at the time, was that appellant’s evidence had been limited to local service rates as the sole basis on which to secure rate relief.
Appellant’s counsel moved the Commission to withdraw this admonition, or, in the alternative, to continue the case for a period of one year in order to allow appellant time within which to make a separation study and to authorize the expenditure of $75,000 for that purpose. This motion was overruled on the ground that appellant had been given ample opportunity to present evidence to the Commission regarding rates and charges.
The Commission’s specific findings, in part, read as follows:
“5. That the schedule of rates filed reflecting the increases in revenue applied generally only to local service rates with no change in intrastate message rates.
“6. That testimony introduced in both proceedings is not sufficient for the Commission to determine the proportion contributed to over-all earn*348ings by the three major classifications of service: (1) local exchange service, (2) intrastate message service, and (3) interstate message service. In its presentation the Company alluded to certain increases in interstate revenues and brought forth certain testimony as regards to methods, cost and length of time required to make an allocation study of revenues, expenses and plant.
“7. That the property actually used and useful for the convenience of the public in its intrastate operations in the State of Indiana cannot be determined from testimony presented before the Commission. Nor can the appropriate expenses for rendering such services be determined.
“8. That the testimony adduced is not sufficient for the Commission to determine whether the rates filed are properly applicable to the cost of service for intrastate message service and local exchange service.
“9. The Indiana Telephone Corporation has not borne the burden of proof required of it in that it has failed to provide proper and adequate information to allow the determination of the reasonableness of the rates now being charged by the Company. The Company’s general books or records cannot enable the Commission staff nor the Commission to determine plant, nor expenses related to interstate services. The Company did not introduce any testimony nor exhibits to assist the Commission in the determination of the just and reasonable rates for intrastate local exchange service and toll service.
“10. The Commission finds lacking such information and finds that it cannot approve the tariff sheets and rates stated therein (now on file with this Commission and being charged) and that they should be cancelled and stricken from the files of the Commission and that the previous rate schedules and rates in effect, to-wit, Supplement No. 1 to P. S. C. I. No. T-12, issued January 23, 1950 and Supplement No. 2 to P. S. C. I. No. T-ll, issued April 22, 1952, are the only proper and legal rates the Commission can approve and enforce at this time, and that P. S. C. I. No. T-13, Part II, Section *3491, Sheets 1 through 6, inclusive, are hereby can-celled.”
In accordance therewith, the following order, in part, was entered:
“1. That the order of this Commission in the above cause dated January 11, 1957, is hereby specifically cancelled.
“2. That P. S. C. I. No. T-13, Part II, Section 1, Sheets 1 through 6, inclusive, be and the same are hereby cancelled as of February 1, 1957 because of insufficient evidence to support the same.
“3. That in lieu thereof, Supplement No. 1 to P. S. C. I. No. T-12 and Supplement No. 2 to P. S. C. I. No. T-ll are reinstituted, effective as of February 1, 1957.
“4. That all monies collected under P. S'. C. I. No. T-13, Part II, Section 1, Sheets 1 through 6, inclusive, are hereby declared to have been illegally collected, and the difference between the monies collected under P. S. C. I. No. T-13, Part II, Section 1, Sheets 1 through 6, inclusive, and Supplement No. 1 to P. S. C. I. No. T-12 and Supplement No. 2 to P. S. C. I. No. T-ll, are hereby ordered refunded to the affected ratepayers, and the Indiana Telephone Corporation is granted 186 days from the date of this order to effect such refund.”
Appellant duly filed its notice of appeal, praecipe, and request for the record. The assignment of error is that the decision, ruling and order of the Commission dated January 24, 1958, is contrary to law.
The basis of appellant’s argument is that the rates placed in effect as a result of the January 11, 1957, order, and which were subsequently ordered to remain in effect pending the rehearing, were then and are now the legal rates binding upon the Commission and all parties concerned, for the reason that they were never validly or legally set aside by the order of January 24, 1958. It is claimed that this last order *350was an illegal attempt by the Commission to cancel the 1957 rates without following the procedure required by statute, in that the rehearing was “the same as” a new and independent proceeding by appellees where the burden was upon them to prove that either the 1947 rates were just and reasonable or that the 1957 rates were arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, neither of which was done; that the Commission made no findings supported by evidence that the 1957 rates were unjust and unreasonable; that as the Commission failed to fix and prescribe rates which were just and reasonable, the 1957 rates must remain in effect and the order of cancellation is void and invalid.
Appellant further charges that the order of refund is retroactive, and that the Commission had no legal authority or power to make it; that a separation study is not and never has been required by the Commission in considering a rate increase of this nature; that if such separation study was necessary, it was incumbent upon appellees to supply it; that the order violated the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana.
Appellees argue that the petition for rehearing is in the nature of a motion for new trial which may be filed in an ordinary lawsuit, and which if granted vacates the judgment entirely as to all parties; that accordingly, at the time the Commission granted the rehearing, the 1957 order was completely vacated, leaving appellant with the burden of proceeding anew on his original petition; that the March 5, 1957, order granting the rehearing, vacated the January 11, 1957, order, leaving the 1947 rates in effect as if they had never been changed; that the March 19, 1957, order *351was invalid and void as it attempted to set rates without notice, hearing or other requirements of the statute.
Appellees further contend that appellant failed to meet the burden of proof showing the necessity for an increase in rates because of failure to provide a sepa-, ration study as required by the Commission in the rehearing proceedings; that the 1947 rates therefore remained and are in effect, never having been legally set aside.
The most important factor in this case concerns the nature and effect of the rehearing which was granted, took place, and was determined by the order of January 24, 1958.
The Public Service Commission of Indiana derives its power solely from the statutes which created it, and its authority to act must be found in the provisions thereof. Section 54-102 et seq., Burns’ 1951 Repl.; 24 I. L. E., §12, page 36.
The statutes do not specifically provide for a petition for rehearing in matters before the Commission. However, at the time the circumstances took place in this case, such a petition was recognized in the sections dealing with actions to vacate or set aside an order of the Commission. There it was stated that such an action should be commenced within sixty days from the entry of the order in a circuit or superior court, “Provided, That if a rehearing by the commission has been petitioned for, the right to commence such action . . . shall terminate thirty (30) days after the determination by the commission of such petition for rehearing: . . . .” Section 54-430, Burns’ 1951 Repl. This section was amended by the General Assembly in 1957 wherein a direct appeal to the Appellate Court of Indiana was provided instead of proceeding first in the circuit or superior court. However, the new section carried with *352it the same proviso about petitions for rehearing. Section 54-444, Burns’ 1951 Repl. (Supp.).
Rule XX of the Rules and Regulations Concerning Practice and Procedure Before the Public Service Commission specifically states that after the entry of an order of the Commission a petition for rehearing may be filed, setting forth the requirements and form of the petition. The rule calls attention to appropriate sections of the Public Service Commission Act as well as the Railway Act and Motor Vehicles Act, with respect to petitions for rehearing. Sections 54-203, 54-430, 55-112, Burns’ 1951 Repl., §§47-1215, 47-1249, Burns’ 1952 Repl.
Thus, it appears that petitions for rehearing are an integral part of the Commission’s procedure. There being nothing more specific in the statutes or rules concerning the nature and legal effect of a petition for rehearing and the granting thereof, we must turn to general principles of law in regard thereto.
Appellant takes the view that such petitions come from the old equity practice under which a motion for new trial was unknown, and the only way in which a decree could be challenged in the court below was by bill of review. Under such equity practice, the granting of such a bill, or “petition for rehearing,” did not per se vacate the original decree, but opened it for correction, alteration or reversal. Lockwood v. Bates (1833), 1 Del. Ch. 435, 12 Am. Dec. 121.
Appellees claim that such a petition is equal to the filing of a motion for new trial in a suit at law, the granting of which appellant admits sets aside the findings and judgment completely, letting the case stand for a new trial as if no proceedings had taken place. Strong v. Knox (1914), 182 Ind. 278, 105 N. E. 776; *353State ex rel. Downard, Administrator v. Templin et al. (1890), 122 Ind. 235, 23 N. E. 697.
Although there is a similarity between these procedures and the petition for rehearing in this case, we do not believe either contention to be correct. As to the bill of review, we must remember that the distinction between law and equity practice and procedure has been abolished in this state. Provision is made by statute for the review by a trial court of a judgment, whether it involves equity or law matters. Section 2-2604, Burns’ 1946 Replacement. It is derived from the old equity practice embodying substantially the ordinances in chancery of Lord Chancellor Bacon. Ross et al. v. Banta (1895), 140 Ind. 120, 34 N. E. 865, 39 N. E. 732. Today, any action to review a judgment is specifically governed by the terms of this statute.
In regard to appellees’ comparison of the petition for rehearing with a motion for new trial, we find likewise that the pleading and grounds for a motion for new trial are prescribed by statute and by Supreme Court Rule 2-6. Sections 2-2401, 2-2406, Burns’ 1946 Repl. These provisions must be strictly followed in trials before the court. The statute is for the purpose of giving to the trial court an opportunity to correct any irregularity in the proceedings or any abuse of discretion by which a party was prevented from having a fair trial. Ferguson v. Ramsey (1873), 41 Ind. 511. The specific irregularities and errors alleged must be set out in the motion. If the motion is overruled it may be assigned as error on appeal. If the motion is sustained and a new trial is granted, the judgment rendered is vacated as to all parties. Strong v. Knox, supra.
The petition for rehearing authorized herein is not subject to the rigid requirements and legal effect of a motion for new trial. This case involves a public ad*354ministrative tribunal. The manner in which a question is presented to it and finally decided by it is largely determined by the Commission itself and formality is not required or observed. 24 I. L. E., §41, page 53; In re Northwestern Indiana Tel. Co. (1930), 201 Ind. 667, 171 N. E. 65.
It has been stated that administrative agencies have inherent or implied power, comparable to that possessed by courts, to rehear or reopen a cause and reconsider its action or determination therein. 73 C.J.S., §156 a., p. 488. It is customary to make application for rehearing.
“In passing on an application for a rehearing, the permissible affirmative action of the agency or officer is limited to the grant or denial of the application. If the rehearing is denied, the order or decision to which the application was addressed becomes final; but, if the application is granted, a rehearing or retrial must be held; and, while it has been held that the granting of a rehearing vacates the previous determination, it has also been held that the original order or decision cannot be abrogated, changed, or modified until after such rehearing and as a result thereof. On an application or petition for rehearing, the administrative agency may, under provisions to that effect, order a hearing de novo and permit other parties to intervene.” 73 C.J.S., §156 d., p. 492.
“On rehearing and reconsideration of a matter an administrative agency may set aside its prior order and enter another order provided no prejudice is thereby shown; and it has been held that an administrative body, like a court, may and should change its order if on rehearing it is of a different mind.” 73 C.J.S., §156 e., p. 493.
“Thus, it has been held that, except as qualified by statute, administrative tribunals possess the inherent power to modify their judicial acts to .serve the ends of essential justice and the policy of the law; and that the general power of an administrative body over its decisions includes the *355right to modify a decision so as to reach a different result on the same record.” 73 C.J.S., §157, p. 493.
“It has been held to be the duty of an administrative agency to correct its decision on discovering that it was illegal.” 73 C.J.S., §157, p. 494.
More specifically, it has been held that Public Service Commissions may rehear and reconsider their determinations not only by reason of express statutory provisions, but by inference from statutory provisions. A Public Service Commission
“may be possessed of power, inherent from the nature of the functions it is required to perform to grant a rehearing of its decisions in appropriate cases. The purpose of a rehearing is to give the commission an opportunity to rectify any mistake made by it; and under some statutes application for a rehearing is a condition precedent to a judicial review of the order of the commission, . . . Whether or not a rehearing should be granted is a matter within the discretion of the commission, provided such discretion is not abused . . . it has been held to constitute error to refuse to grant a rehearing where the order of the commission is based on findings of fact which are not supported by evidence. . . .” 73 C. J. S., §61, p. 1140. (Our emphasis.)
“At the new hearing, where an unrestricted rehearing has been granted, the whole proceeding is reopened and is to be heard as though no previous order had been entered.” 73 C. J. S., §61, p. 1141. (Our emphasis.)
We believe these to be the principles of law governing the case at bar. The Commission was within its inherent or implied powers to grant a rehearing, and to hold a new hearing, on appellant’s petition for increase in rates. At the time the new hearing commenced, the Commission was in a position to proceed as though the previous order of January 11, 1957, had never been entered.
*356What was the effect of the order of March 5, 1957, granting the rehearing? The general rule is stated as follows:
“In the absence of a statute otherwise providing, granting or allowing a rehearing does not suspend the operation of the order theretofore made by the commission, unless it specifically so directs. The original order is not to be abrogated, changed or modified until after a rehearing is in fact had.” 73 C. J. S., §61, p. 1141. (Our emphasis.)
This statement of the law seems to be in accord with the opinion of the Attorney General, cited by appellant, wherein it was said:
“The legislature recognizes another method of attacking orders of the Commission, viz., by filing a petition for rehearing, although no specific provisions are found in the act for rehearing and there is an absence of provision as to the effect of the filing of a petition for rehearing or of the granting thereof on an order of the Commission. So- far as the intent of the legislature is indicated on this question, reasoning by analogy from what such intent is when the attack is in court, it seems that the intent would be that an order of the Commission would be in force until a different order were finally made when a rehearing has been consummated.
“Reasoning in another way, it seems clear that the granting of a rehearing does not amount to a confession that an order is erroneous or void but only affords an opportunity to show that in the end.” Opinions Attorney General, 1925-1926, February 19, 1925, p. 468.
Thus, the revised order of March 19, 1957, entered by the Commission in an attempt to clarify the March 5th order, in so far as it determined to keep the 1957 rates in effect pending rehearing, was actually unnecessary and surplusage. The rates set in the January 11th *357order remained as a matter of law the valid and legal rates until they were abrogated by the January 24, 1958, order following the rehearing. As was stated in the ease of State ex rel. v. Public Service Commission (1927), 317 Mo. 724, 732, 296 S. W. 998, 1001:
“If such rates are found to be just and reasonable, the Commission is without jurisdiction to arbitrarily limit their existence. They remain the rates until changed by an order lawfully made in this proceeding, or in a new proceeding, before the Commission. . . .” (Our emphasis.)
The effect of the order of March 5, 1957, as amended by the order of March 19, 1957, in granting the rehearing, was to leave the rates established January 11, 1957, in force pending the rehearing. When the proceedings on rehearing took place, beginning on September 30, 1957, the effect was the same as if the matter was being heard de novo and there never had been a previous hearing or order. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the issues were not entirely changed from the general principles enunciated above. This was not an independent or new proceeding. It was as if the appellant’s application for a rate increase had come before the Commission for the first time. There was no need to determine whether the rates set by the 1957 order were unreasonable, excessive or inadequate. There was no need to make findings as to what rates and charges in lieu thereof would be reasonable, adequate and not excessive. The 1957 rates were not under attack. The 19J7 rates were attacked. The issues were not changed in any respect, but remained the same as when appellant’s application was first filed in July, 1957. When the Commission found as a result of the rehearing that the appellant had not submitted sufficient evidence upon which to base an increase in rates, the 1947 rates auto*358matically came back in effect. The result of the Commission’s action was the same as the dismissal of a lawsuit for failure on the part of the plaintiff to present evidence sufficient to support the allegations of his complaint.
This disposes of most of appellant’s other arguments for reversal. The burden of proof to show that the 1947 rates were inadequate and unreasonable remained with appellant. It did not shift to appellees upon rehearing. This is because of our previous interpretation of the nature of a rehearing. The Commission found that appellant did not sustain this burden of proof, principally because it had no evidence to present on separation of property, services and charges devoted to toll service and that devoted to exchange service. Appellant argues that such evidence has never been required by the Commission in determining rates of telephone companies not a part of the Bell system, and is not now required. However, this is a matter to be determined by the Commission in each particular case presented to it. This court has no power to instruct the Commission as to the type of evidence it shall or shall not require in a given case when in the performance of its statutory duties. The fact that a separation study never has been required previously in a telephone rate hearing before the Commission is no argument that it should not be required in this instance. This was a matter within the Commission’s discretion. The record shows that there was evidence and testimony pertaining to this issue. We find the Commission did not abuse its discretion in demanding such a study.
The fact that the Commission overruled appellant’s motion to withdraw the admonition to counsel regarding the separation study and refused to allow a con*359tinuance for one year within which to make such a study was not such an error as to require a reversal, nor did it deprive appellant of its constitutional rights. In overruling the motion, the Commission stated that appellant had had ample time and every opportunity to present evidence to the Commission relative to rates and charges. The record shows that between the first hearing and the rehearing there elapsed almost a year. Further, in its order of January 24, 1958, the Commission refers to the oral argument which was held before it on February 15, 1957, relative to the rehearing. The matter of separation was called to the attention of the Commission by one of the attorneys for the objectors, who stated that he felt that the separation of property devoted to toll service and that devoted to exchange service was a matter subject to inquiry. Thus, we cannot say that appellant was completely taken by surprise when the separation study was requested.
Appellant contends that the order of January 24, 1958, deprived it of its property without due process, not only because the 1947 rates were unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory, but also because the procedure followed by the Commission amounted to a denial of a fair hearing. As we have previously seen, the Commission stated that sufficient evidence was not presented to it at the rehearing to enable it to determine whether the 1947 rates were unreasonable and arbitrary. This left matters in status quo, with the 1947 rates coming into effect and remaining so thereafter. We have carefully looked at the record and we cannot find from the evidence set forth therein that the Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
In the opinion of the Commission, appellant did not make a case at the rehearing. Having failed to do so, appellant cannot now claim that it was deprived of *360its property without due process or that it was denied a fair hearing.
Appellant argues that the January 24, 1958, order impaired the obligation of its contracts with its customers in that the order illegally did away with the rates authorized by the 1957 order, all of which is claimed to be a violation of the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Indiana. This argument is refuted by our interpretation of the nature and effect of the rehearing. The rates set by the 1957 order were conditional only. That order was always subject to the filing of a petition for rehearing within twenty days after its entry. (Rule XX of the Rules and Regulations of the Public Service Commission.) When the rehearing was granted, the 1957 rates remained in effect only until the final order on rehearing, which could modify, change or reverse entirely the previous order. The new order of January 24, 1958, voided and supplanted the 1957 order as if it had never existed. Thus, there was no contract between appellant and its customers, the obligation of which could be violated.
This brings us to the January 24, 1958, order requiring a refund of monies collected under the 1957 order in excess of the amounts due under the 1947 rates. The Commission made the order retroactive as of February 1, 1957, when the 1957 rates were placed in effect. In view of our interpretation of the law pertaining to the effect of the order granting the rehearing, this section of the order is void and of no effect.
For reasons heretofore set forth, we do not agree with appellee that the March 5, 1957, order granting the rehearing either (1) destroyed and wiped out the 1957 rates or (2) could not be altered or amended so as to allow collection of the 1957 rates pending rehearing. We have tried to point out that appellant was *361entitled to collect the 1957 rates after the granting of rehearing and retain them as a matter of law, but only to January 24, 1958, at which time the 1947 rates automatically came back into force.
From January 24, 1958, appellant is subject to the provision of §54-448, Burns’ 1951 Repl. (Supp.), wherein appellant on filing an appeal to this court may collect the rates it claims were validly authorized by the January 11, 1957, order, providing that if such rates are not sustained on appeal, it must refund the difference to its subscribers. After the 1958 order, appellant was well aware that there was a grave question concerning these rates. If it continued to collect them, it did so with full knowledge that they might not be sustained on appeal.
As a result, I would have sustained the order of the Commission dated January 24, 1958, in all respects except as to its ruling on payment of a refund retroactively from February 1, 1957, to January 25, 1958. Rather than to arbitrarily dispose of this case at this time, however, I would have taken advantage of the latitude and broad powers granted this court by the Act of 1957 wherein this court may affirm or set aside the order of the Commission in whole or in part or remand the proceeding to the Commission with instructions. Section 54-449, Burns’ 1951 Repl. (Supp.).
I would have remanded this cause to the Public Service Commission, with instructions that new evidence could be received, if there were any; and that evidence of facts which were in existence at the time of the rehearing could be received, providing there were a showing to the Commission that such evidence was not available for presentation to the Commission prior to the entry of its final order on rehearing, and that due diligence was exercised by the party offering the same *362to procure and present such evidence prior to the entry of final order on rehearing. If any additional evidence was to be taken, I would have instructed the Commission to file with this court any decision, findings or order made and entered by the Commission as a result thereof. If no such additional evidence was taken, and there are no further proceedings brought before the Commission, I would have required the same to be reported to this court, and would have disposed of this cause according to the terms of this opinion.
Gonas, J., concurs in dissent.
Note. — Reported in 171 N. E. 2d 111.