The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCLAUGHLIN
In this appeal the Court is asked to suspend and vacate two orders, namely No. 3530 and No. 3715 of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, which were issued as a result of proceedings before the Commission denominated 'In the Matter of Bus Service of the Capital Transit Company in Southeast Washington and designated as P.U.C. Formal Case No. 383.' Order No. 3530 as hereinafter explained, has been supplanted by Order No. 3715.
This is the second time this cause has been before this Court on appeal.
In the original petition of appeal the Washington, Marlboro and Annapolis Motor Lines, Inc., hereinafter referred to as W., M. & A., contended that Order No. 3530 should be vacated because it had not received actual or statutory notice of the proceeding from which the order emanated; that it had not been a party to said proceedings; that the order illegally set up competitive service to service rendered by W., M. & A., and that, as a result, the said order was illegal and confiscatory because it deprived the W., M. & A., of its rights and property without compensation or due process of law.
Petitioner, W., M. & A., alleged as a basis for the foregoing contentions that it is affected by order No. 3530 extending the C-2 and W-4 bus lines of the Capital Transit Company, hereinafter referred to as C.T.C., and that it is thus a 'public utility interested' within the meaning of the term as used in the statute. D.C. Code, Title 43, Section 416 (1940 Ed.). Upon application, C.T.C. was granted leave to intervene in the action as a party appellant.
One of the principal issues raised by the original petition was whether the W., M. & A. was a party entitled to statutory notice of the proceedings in Formal Case No. 383.
In remanding the case to the Commission the Court stated in its memorandum,
'In order to determine whether the rights of W., M. & A. in the premises have been invaded, it is necessary to consider what interests of W., M. & A., if any, were involved in the hearing of which it was not given notice and the effect upon the rights of W., M. & A., of failure to receive notice.' Pp. 8, 9.
The Court in expressing its conclusions said,
'It would seem to be impossible to determine whether the contentions of W., M. & A., in the above regard are sound or otherwise in the absence of evidence bearing upon the questions therein involved. The record is, of course, silent on the points involved in the said contentions of W., M. & A., for the obvious reason that W., M. & A. was not a party to the hearing and presented no testimony.'
'Under the circumstances the Court concludes that the hearing involved a situation which might reasonably be held to have affected the vital interests of W., M. & A. Whether such interests were actually affected cannot be determined on the record in its present state.' Pp. 10, 12.
Accordingly the Commission issued its notice of formal public hearing to be held 'upon matters involved in Formal Case No. 383, and upon such matters as directed by the Court.' Copy of 'Notice of Hearing' is set ...