ORDER

AND NOW, this 5th day of November, 2014, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, the Applica*53tion for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED, and the Application for Stay is DENIED as moot.

concurring.

I join the per curiam order, denying the application for a writ of prohibition and application for stay. I write separately to note that, upon preliminary review of the matter, it appears that Petitioner has presented, inter alia, a colorable argument that the Commonwealth Court sua sponte inserted an undisputed issue into an otherwise moot case. Nevertheless, I join in the denial of the writ of prohibition because such writ is generally available to restrain a court from usurping jurisdiction that it does not possess or exceeding the established limits of its jurisdiction, and the writ does not lie to correct errors of law. See Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole, 506 Pa. 12, 483 A.2d 1339, 1342 (1984). Because it appears to me that the Commonwealth Court’s action, regardless of its propriety, did not exceed the bounds of its jurisdiction, relief in the form of a grant of writ of prohibition is unwarranted.