GR L 550; (January, 1947) (CRITIQUE)
__________________________________________________________________
THE AI-ASSISTED CRITIQUE
The Commission’s treatment of the lost application as a new filing was a proper exercise of its regulatory power under its enabling statute to establish procedural rules. The petitioner’s own suggestion that his motion be considered a new application if reconstitution failed, invoking the principle of estoppel, precludes his later objection. The additional costs incurred were incidental to this procedural shift and did not constitute a denial of a vested right, as no certificate had been granted under the original application, aligning with the maxim damnum absque injuria regarding loss without legal injury.

The policy requiring existing machinery as a precondition for granting a certificate was a valid exercise of the Commission’s discretionary authority to adapt to post-war exigencies and prevent speculative applications. This condition was directly tied to the urgent public need for immediate ice service, a factual determination within the Commission’s specialized competence. A writ of certiorari is inappropriate here, as the challenge attacks the reasonableness of a policy choice, not a jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s claim of being denied his day in court is without merit, as he received a full hearing on the merits of his new application alongside others. The Commission’s policy was applied uniformly, and its factual finding regarding the applicant’s lack of equipment provided a rational basis for dismissal. The petition essentially seeks a review of the order’s wisdom, which is not the function of certiorari but of an appeal, a remedy not pursued here, leaving the Commission’s factual and policy determinations undisturbed.