Asato v. Procurement Policy Board, State of Hawaii.

Opinion of the Court by

ACOBA, J.

We hold that Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appel-lee/Cross-Appellant Lloyd Y. Asato (Asato) had standing to bring a claim challenging the validity of Hawaii Administrative Rule (HAR) § 3-122-66 (2008), based on his status as an “interested person” pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-7 (1993) 1 and in order to satisfy the “needs of justice.” See Life of the Land v. Land Use Comm’n., 63 Haw. 166, 176, 623 P.2d 431, 441 (1981). We also decide that HAR § 3-122-66 (2003)2 is invalid because it exceeds the scope of authority given by the legislature to…