concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. The circuit court, in dismissing the petition filed by petitioner/appellant-appellant Paulette Ka'anohiokalani Kaleikini (Ka-leikini), stated that Kanialcapupu v. Land Use Commission, 111 Hawai'i 124, 139 P.3d 712 (2006) required it to rule that it lacked jurisdiction under HRS chapter 91. I write separately to emphasize my view that the circuit court erroneously applied Kanialcapu-pu and therefore erred in dismissing Kaleiki-ni’s petition. In Kanialcapupu, the relevant administrative rules required that a hearing be held on the plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause, but the hearing did not constitute a contested case hearing. Id. at 132-34, 139 P.3d at 720-22. Additionally, this court recognized that there was no “procedural vehicle” for the plaintiff to obtain a contested case hearing on its motion for an order to show cause. Id. at 137, 139 P.3d at 725. Thus a contested case hearing was not “required by law.” Id. In contrast, as set forth by the majority opinion, the relevant Hawai'i Administrative Rules and statutes provide for a contested ease hearing in the instant context. Majority op. at 17-18, 237 P.3d at 1083-84. Finally, I believe that it is appropriate to consider this ease under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine in order to clarify the scope of the holding in Kanialcapupu. Accordingly, I concur in the result.