ÿWPC‚# …# VUDa %¥ 0(«4Óç 0lö 0Db 1m¦ 0d 0w R w@X ˜ 0J  0Tê 0^> 0hœ 0r 0|v 0†ò 0x 1uU,} 0d©U,  B9B)VDC AM D3U*Bl 0@„JÄv~vÓ› 0Šn 0 ø 0´˜ 0ÇL 0Û 0ïî AOÝ!Æ," 0Dò" D/6# Be#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡Gav x3|x] ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó uvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àHvXXyÔðð€Ô#†XyXXX@Õ£#Ô50„13„19(b)€(HarrisonÐ K DL DM N DO P Q VR eS Ó€] 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌApril€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Jaco€incorrectly€identified€the€parties€in€his€€petition€forÏreview€in€à8 àthe€chancery€court€by€naming€himself€asÏð ðrespondent/appellantðð€and€the€Department€ofÏHealth,€Bureau€of€Medicaid€asÏð ðpetitioner/appellee.ðð€€Inasmuch€as€JacoÏcommenced€the€action€in€chancery€court,€he€isÏactually€the€petitioner.€€The€Department€of€Health,ÏBureau€of€Medicaid€should€be€identified€as€theÏrespondent.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSuit€may€be€filed€in€some€other€chancery€court€as€certainÏcircumstances€à0 àmay€dictate.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ K ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€‡xXXdìdÈ7ÑœIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  Ó_____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌJOHN€JACO,à àà àà àà àà àDavidson€Chancery€No.€95„192„IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01„A„01„9507„CH„00285Ìà àPetitioner/Appellant,à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€Robert€S.€Brandt,€ChancellorÌÙ€€ÙœßL€),(;+'h|bm` ç `€€Lß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌDEPARTMENT€OF€HEALTH,ÌBUREAU€OF€MEDICAID,ÌÌà àRespondent/Appellee.ÌÌÌTHOMAS€F.€BLOOM,€Nashville,€Attorney€for€Petitioner/AppellantÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSON,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€and€MICHELLE€K.€HOHNKE,ÏAssistant€Attorney€General,€NashvilleÌAttorneys€for€Respondent/AppelleeÌÌò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÌOpinion€Filed:Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óÌÌÒ  ÒÒ î ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€the€judicial€review€of€an€administrativeÏdecision€regarding€the€denial€of€petitionerððs€application€for€benefits€forÏcare€at€a€nursing€home€facility.€€The€chancellor€granted€the€motion€toÏdismiss€of€the€Department€of€Health,€Bureau€of€Medicaid€(ð ðrespondentððÍor€ð ðStateðð)€on€the€ground€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€due€to€the€failure€of€petitioner× ƒ. ××  ×€to€cause€a€summons€to€beÏproperly€issued€and€served€on€the€Department€within€the€sixty€(60)€dayÏtime€limit€specified€in€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1)€(1991).€€The€sole€issueÏpresented€for€review€by€this€court€is€whether€the€chancellor€erred€inÏdismissing€petitionerððs€suit€for€judicial€review€for€lack€of€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction.€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reverse€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€and€remand.ÌÌà àPetitioner€applied€for€a€preadmission€evaluation€(PAE)€so€as€toÏmake€him€eligible€for€Medicaid€benefits€for€care€at€an€Intermediate€CareÏFacility€(ICF).€€òòSeeóó€òò€óóT.C.A.€ðð€71„5„107(a)(15)€(1995).€€This€is€requiredÏbecause€the€Department€of€Health€will€not€reimburse€an€ICF€unless€theÏDepartment€has€approved€a€PAE€€for€this€individual.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&ÍRegs.€r.€1200„12„1„.10(2)€(1983).€€On€November€21,€1994,€respondentÏissued€a€final€order€denying€petitionerððs€PAE€application.ÌÌà àThe€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act€(UAPA)€providesÏjudicial€review€for€an€individual€who€is€aggrieved€by€a€final€decision€of€aÏstate€agency€in€a€contested€case.€€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1)€(1991).€ÏJudicial€review€may€be€obtained€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(b)(1)€Proceedings€for€review€are€instituted€by€filing€aÏpetition€for€review€in€the€chancery€court€of€Davidson€County,Ïunless€another€court€is€specified€by€statute.€€Such€petitionÏshall€be€filed€within€sixty€(60)€days€after€the€entry€of€theÏagencyððs€final€order€thereon.Ìà8 àÌà8 à(2)€.€.€.€Copies€of€the€petition€shall€be€served€upon€the€agencyÏand€all€parties€of€record,€including€the€attorney€general€andÏreporter,€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure€pertaining€to€service€of€process.ÌÌÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1)€&€(2)€(1991).ÌÌÓÓÌà àOn€January€18,€1995,€Jaco€filed€a€petition€in€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏDavidson€County€seeking€review€of€the€Departmentððs€final€order.€€He€alsoÏmailed€a€copy€of€the€petition€to€the€office€of€the€state€Attorney€GeneralÍand€to€the€Department€of€Health.€€However,€he€failed€to€file€and€cause€toÏbe€issued€a€summons.€€Petitioner€did€file€a€summons€on€March€24,€1995Ïwhich€was€more€than€sixty€(60)€days€after€respondentððs€final€order.€€InÏgranting€respondentððs€motion€to€dismiss,€the€chancellor€held€that€theÏpetitionerððs€late€filing€and€issuance€of€the€summons€was€a€jurisdictionalÏdefect€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€Jaco€filed€his€petition€for€review€within€theÏsixty€(60)€day€period€as€set€out€in€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1).€€It€isÏundisputed€that€he€caused€a€copy€of€the€petition€for€review€to€be€mailedÏto€the€appropriate€state€agency€and€the€state€Attorney€General.€€It€isÏalso€undisputed€that€he€failed€to€file€and€caused€to€be€issued€a€summonsÏbefore€the€sixty€(60)€day€period€had€expired.ÌÌÑ7€ð²XXdèXXdè7ÑÔ% € Ôà àÔ€Ôà@ àò òòòStatutory€Interpretationóóó óÌ€€€€€€€The€outcome€of€this€case€turns€on€the€proper€interpretation€andÏconstruction€of€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1)€&€(2)€as€quoted€above.€€In€both€theÏtrial€court€and€this€court€respondent€relied€upon€two€cases€from€theÏmiddle€section€of€this€court€to€convince€the€trial€court€and€an€attempt€toÏconvince€this€court€that€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(2)€should€be€construed€as€aÍmirror€reflection€of€Rule€3€of€T.R.C.P.,€and€thus€would€require€theÏissuance€of€a€summons€to€be€served€upon€the€agency€and€all€parties€ofÏrecord€within€the€sixty€(60)€day€period€specified€by€statute€in€order€toÏconfer€subject€matter€jurisdiction.ÌÌà àThe€first€of€the€two€cases€referred€to€above€is€òòMetropolitan€GovððtÏof€Nashville€&€Davidson€County€v.€Tennessee€State€Board€of€Equalizationóó,ÏNo.€01„A„01„9108„CH„00289,€1991€WL€274516€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€27,Ï1991).€€In€that€case€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€andÏDavidson€County€(ð ðMetroðð)€petitioned€the€Tennessee€State€Board€ofÏEqualization€(ð ðBoardðð)€to€terminate€the€tax€exemption€of€NashvilleÏMemorial€Hospital€(ð ðMemorialðð),€a€non„profit€corporation€operating€aÏhospital€in€Nashville.€€The€Board€dismissed€the€petition€of€Metro.€€WithinÏsixty€(60)€days€of€the€order€of€dismissal€Metro€filed€a€petition€forÏjudicial€review€in€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court.€€A€copy€of€theÏpetition€was€mailed€to€the€attorneys€for€Memorial,€€which€was€not€namedÏas€a€respondent.€€A€copy€of€the€petition€was€also€mailed€to€the€Board,€andÏa€summons€was€issued€to€and€service€of€same€was€accepted€by€the€Board.€ÏPrior€to€the€hearing€in€the€trial€court€Memorial€was€granted€leave€toÏintervene€in€that€proceeding.€€There€is€no€question€that€Memorial€was€anÍindispensable€party,€inasmuch€as€its€tax€status€was€at€issue€in€the€case.€ÏMemorial€was€never€made€a€party€to€the€action€in€the€Chancery€Court.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€*1„2.ÌÌà àAlong€with€the€motion€to€intervene,€Memorial€filed€a€motion€toÏdismiss€for€€failure€to€serve€process,€as€provided€by€the€provisions€ofÏthe€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€codified€as€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„101Ïto€324€(1991).€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€proper€service€of€theÏpetition€for€review€upon€Memorial€was€a€statutory€prerequisite€to€reliefÏand€dismissed€the€petition.€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€middle€section€of€this€court€correctly€noticed€thatÏthe€only€relief€requested€by€Metro€related€to€the€rights€of€Memorial.€€ItÏfurther€noted€that€the€ð ðthe€issue€is€the€failure€to€serve€a€copy€of€theÏpetition€upon€Memorial€in€the€manner€required€by€statute,ðð€and€that€ð ðtheÏproper€means€of€assuring€such€service€was€to€name€Memorial€as€a€party.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€*4„5.€€Noting€that€the€issue€on€appeal€was€a€question€of€firstÏimpression€in€this€state,€the€middle€section€cited€case€law€fromÏColorado€and€Connecticut€as€authority€for€its€action,€wherein€theÏappellate€court€upheld€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€dismissing€theÍaction€brought€for€the€failure€to€include€a€necessary€or€indispensableÏparty.€€òòIdóó.€at€*5€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àThe€ultimate€conclusion€reached€by€the€middle€section€of€this€courtÏin€òòMetropolitan€Govððtóó€gives€us€no€pause€for€concern.€€What€this€courtÏconceives€as€€the€source€of€the€legal€problems€with€which€we€are€nowÏdealing€are€statements€in€the€form€of€dicta€made€by€the€òòMetropolitanÏGovððtóó€court€in€attempting€to€construe€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(2),€which€weÏrepeat€for€sake€of€convenience€and€emphasis:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(2)€.€.€.€Copies€of€the€petition€shall€be€served€upon€the€agencyÏand€all€parties€of€record,€including€the€attorney€general€andÏreporter,€òòin€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure€pertaining€to€service€of€processóó.Ï(emphasis€added)€Ì€ÌÓÓÌà àIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€in€the€opinion€of€this€court€ourÏbrothers€on€the€middle€section€digressed€from€the€controlling€issue€inÏòòMetropolitan€Govððtóó€when€it€proceeded€to€declare€what€the€legislatureÏintended€by€the€underlined€language€in€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(2).€€TheÏòòMetropolitan€Govððtóó€court€concluded€that€the€underscored€languageÏencompassed€both€Rules€3€and€4€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÍProcedure.€€The€court€proceeded€to€take€another€bold€step€in€stating€theÏfollowing€conclusion:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àRule€4.01,€quoted€above,€requires€the€issuance€ofÏsummons€with€copy€of€complaint.€€As€applied€to€petitions€forÏreview,€the€rule€requires€the€issuance€of€summons€withÏcopies€of€petition.à àÌÌòòÌÓÓMetropolitan€Govððtóó€at€*4.€€We€are€constrained€to€observe€that€insofar€asÏit€related€to€the€issues€the€court€was€considering€on€appeal,€the€aboveÏlanguage€is€dicta.€€Second,€the€conclusion€that€the€court€reached€above€inÏessence€amounts€to€a€rewriting€of€section€4„5„322(b)(2).ÌÌà àThe€second€case€relied€upon€by€the€state€is€òòHRA,€Inc.€v.€TennesseeÏDepððt€of€Commerce€&€Ins.óó€914€S.W.2d€512€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€òòHRAóó,€as€inÏòòMetropolitan€Govððtóó,€deals€with€the€failure€of€petitioner€to€name€in€theÏpetition€for€review€a€material€or€indispensable€party.€HRA€was€seeking€aÏchange€in€the€workers€compensation€insurance€risk€factor€assigned€to€itÏby€the€National€Council€on€Compensation€Insurance€(NCCI).€€HRA€did€notÏname€NCCI€as€a€party,€and€did€nothing€more€than€send€a€copy€of€theÏpetition€for€review€filed€against€TDCI€to€NCCI€by€mail.€€òòIdóó.€at€513„14.€€InÏòòHRAóó,€Judge€Todd€noted€that€ð ðservice€of€process€is€not€the€issue€in€thisÍappeal.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€515.€€As€the€court€found€in€òòMetropolitan€Govððtóó€in€regardsÏto€Memorial,€the€òòHRAóó€court€found€that€NCCI€was€an€omitted€party€againstÏwhich€HRA€failed€to€preserve€its€right€of€review,€and€affirmed€theÏdismissal€of€HRAððs€€petition€against€TDCI.€€òòIdóó.€at€516.ÇÌÌà àThe€òòHRAóó€court€reiterated€the€same€dicta€as€set€out€in€òòMetropolitanÏGovððtóó.€€After€quoting€the€pertinent€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(2)Ïand€T.R.C.P.€3,€as€amended€July€1,€1992,€it€stated:€€ð ðClearly,€under€theÏquoted€statute€and€rule,€the€petitioner,€HRA€was€required€to€òòfileóó€aÏcomplaint€(petition€for€review)€òòandóó€òòsummonsóó€upon€all€interested€parties,Ïincluding€NCCI.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€514.ÌÌà àWith€all€due€respect€to€our€brothers€in€the€middle€section,€weÏdisagree€with€their€interpretation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(2),€asÏexpressed€in€both€òòMetropolitan€Govððtóó€and€òòHRAóó.€€As€a€general€rule,€theÏpurpose€of€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€theÏintention€and€purpose€of€the€legislature.€€òòCarson€Creek€Vacation€Resorts,ÏInc.€v.€Department€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993).€€LegislativeÏintent€is€to€be€ascertained€primarily€from€the€natural€and€ordinaryÏmeaning€of€the€language€used,€without€forced€or€subtle€construction€thatÏwould€limit€or€extend€the€meaning€of€the€language.€€Where€the€languageÏcontained€within€the€four€corners€of€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,€andÏunambiguous€and€the€enactment€is€within€legislative€competency,€theÍduty€of€the€court€is€to€obey€it.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€language€of€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322,€by€its€ordinary€meaning,€requiresÏproceedings€for€review€to€be€instituted€òòonlyóó€by€the€filing€of€a€òòpetitionÏfor€reviewÌóóin€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court× ƒ/ ××  ×€within€sixty€(60)€days€after€theÏentry€of€the€agencyððs€final€order€thereon.€€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1).€ÏSubsection€(b)(2)€provides€that€the€òòpetition€for€reviewóó€(with€no€mentionÏof€a€summons)€shall€be€served€in€accordance€with€the€òòprovisionsóó€ofÏT.R.C.P.€òòpertaining€to€service€of€processóó.€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àBy€the€same€token,€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322€does€not€call€for€proceedingsÏfor€review€to€be€instituted€by€filing€a€petition€for€review€òòandóó€summons.€ÏIt€does€not€say€that€the€petition€and€summons€shall€be€filed€within€sixtyÏ(60)€days€of€the€agencyððs€final€order,€nor€does€it€say€that€a€petition€forÏreview€is€to€be€considered€a€ð ðcivil€actionðð€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€3,€theÏinterpretation€given€it€by€the€òòMetropolitan€Govððtóó€and€òòHRAóó€courts.€ÌÌà àTo€the€contrary,€in€reading€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322€in€accordance€with€theÏestablished€guidelines€of€statutory€construction,€the€statute€says€thatÏpetitions€for€review€are€to€be€òòservedóó€in€the€same€manner€as€theÏprovisions€for€service€of€process€as€are€contained€in€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Civil€Procedure,€namely,€Rule€4.€€The€ððprocessð ð€being€served€in€sectionÏ4„5„322€is€a€petition€for€review,€while€the€ð ðprocessðð€being€served€in€anÏordinary€civil€suit€under€Rule€4€is€a€ð ðcomplaint€and€summons.ðð€€TheÏnature€of€the€process€being€served€is€different,€but€the€methodology€ofÏservice€is€to€be€the€same.€€There€is€nothing€contained€in€section€4„5„322Ïthat€reflects€an€intent€to€convert€the€nature€of€the€process€describedÏtherein€to€the€nature€of€the€process€referred€to€in€T.R.C.P.€3.ÌÌà àIn€the€opinion€of€this€court,€our€interpretation€of€T.C.A.€4„5„322(b)Ïis€wholly€consistent€with€the€fundamental€rules€of€statutoryÏconstruction€in€this€state.€€In€òòAustin€v.€Memphis€Publishing€Co.óó€655ÏS.W.2d€146€(Tenn.€1983),€our€Supreme€Court€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€a€recent€American€work€on€Statutory€Law,€it€is€saidÏthat€the€intention€of€the€legislature€is€to€be€learned€from€theÏwords€it€has€used;€.€.€.€and€if€that€intention€is€expressed€in€aÏmanner€devoid€of€contradiction€and€ambiguity,€there€is€noÏroom€for€interpretation€or€construction,€and€the€judges€areÏnot€at€liberty,€on€consideration€of€policy€or€hardship,€toÏdepart€from€the€words€of€the€statute;€that€they€have€no€rightÍto€make€exceptions€or€insert€qualifications,€howeverÏabstract€justice€or€the€justice€of€the€particular€case€mayÏseem€to€require€it.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€148€(citing€òòHeiskell€v.€Loweóó,€153€S.W.€284,€290€(Tenn.€1912)).€€InÏthe€case€before€us,€petitioner€in€his€petition€for€review€namedÏrespondent€as€a€party.€€He€filed€the€petition€within€the€sixty€(60)€dayÏlimitation€period€as€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1).€€In€accordanceÏwith€the€provisions€of€T.R.C.P.€4.04(8),€he€mailed€a€copy€to€respondentÏand€also€to€the€office€of€the€state€Attorney€General.€€In€our€opinion,€heÏcomplied€with€all€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(b),€and€thus€hisÏcase€was€properly€before€the€trial€court.€€The€chancellor€erred€inÏdismissing€the€petition€for€lack€of€jurisdiction.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€This€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€hearing€on€the€merits€and€for€otherÏproceedings€not€inconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€in€this€cause€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€respondent,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÓÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)€Ì