Appeals from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Application of John N. Thomas, for the right to begin to transport, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, groups and parties of persons, persons on special excursions and tours or sightseeing trips, who are guests of the Willow Valley Motor Inn, located in the Township of West Lampeter, Lancaster County, to points and places in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 97525.
Ernest S. Burch, with him Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, for appellant, Dutchland Tours, Inc.
John Paul Kershner, with him Barley, Snyder, Cooper & Mueller, for appellants, Conestoga Transportation Company and Conestoga Tours, Inc.
Melvin G. M. Walwyn, Assistant Counsel, with him Alfred N. Lowenstein, Assistant Counsel, and Philip P. Kalodner, counsel, for appellee.
John W. Burge, with him M. Elvin Byler and Wenger and Byler, for intervening appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
This is an appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) granting to
John N. Thomas a certificate authorization "[t]o transport as a common carrier, persons who are guests of the Willow Valley Motor Inn, on special excursions and tours or sightseeing trips, from the said Willow Valley Motor Inn, located in the Township of West Lampeter, Lancaster County, to points of political, social, economic, cultural and historical interest of the Mennonite religious sect in Lancaster County.*fn1
Protests were filed by Dutchland Tours, Inc., Conestoga Transportation Company, and Conestoga Tours, Inc., to the application for a certificate of public convenience filed by John N. Thomas. Hearings were held and the PUC entered its short-form order on August 17, 1973, approving the application and granting the authorization noted above. The protestants filed appeals with this Court and John N. Thomas was thereafter granted leave to intervene. On October 23, 1973, the PUC issued its long-form order intended to set forth the PUC's findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its order.
Section 1005 of the Public Utility Law, Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1053, 66 P.S. § 1395, provides: "After the conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall make and file its findings and order with its opinion if any. Its findings shall be in sufficient detail to enable the court on appeal, to determine the controverted question presented by the proceeding, and whether proper weight was given to the evidence. . . ."
Although we are mindful that our Superior Court, in Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 343, 124 A.2d ...