Original jurisdiction in case of City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; William Sherlock, as Secretary of the Department of Transportation; Grace Sloan, as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
D. R. Pellegrini, Deputy City Solicitor, with him Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr., City Solicitor, for petitioner.
George D. Wenick, Assistant Attorney General, with him Herbert G. Zahn, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, DiSalle and Craig. Judges Blatt and MacPhail did not participate. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 248]
In August of 1972, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) ordered the City of Pittsburgh (City), at its initial expense, to begin demolition and reconstruction of the bridge carrying State Highway Route 228 over and above the grade of a track of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County. By subseqent order dated January 15, 1974, the Commission required the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to reimburse the City in a sum equal to 50% of the actual cost of materials and work, "when and as certified by Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission."
In October of 1974, the Commission certified costs of $667,139.19. By letter of December 6, 1974, PennDOT admitted owing $590,438.41, and filed a Petition to Open the Record contesting certain costs incurred by the City before August, 1972. In March of 1975,
[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 249]
the Commission granted the department's petition and a hearing was held May 8, 1975, at which time the City was to justify its computation of costs.
After the hearing, the Commission issued a clarification of the January 15, 1974 order, setting August 17, 1972 as the date from which costs incurred by the City would be shared by PennDOT, in effect reducing PennDOT's share. In accordance with that modified order, the Commission, on July 21, 1976, recertified the amount which PennDOT owed the City as $655,731.75.
On October 27, 1976, these proceedings began when the City filed a petition for review in the nature of mandamus to compel PennDOT to pay the originally certified amount, plus interest accruing from October 30, 1974.
Before us now is the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings wherein the City acknowledges receipt of the correct principal amount ($655,731.75) but alleges that interest on this delayed payment, from October 30, 1974, the date of original certification, to the date of payment, September 21, 1977, remains due.
Judgment on the pleadings may be entered only where a review of all of the pleadings reveals that there are no issues of fact outstanding and the case is clear. Commonwealth ex rel. Milk Marketing Board v. The Ohio Casualty ...