substantial part thereof[.]” Section 62-6-12(A)(4). In addition, “[a]ny ... transaction in contravention of this section without prior authorization of the [C]ommission shall be void and of no effect.” Section 62-6-12(13). In regard to appellate review, a party in a proceeding before the Commission is given a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court for review of a final order of the Commission. NMSA 1978, § 62-11-1 (1993). Whether the Writs Were Procedurally Defective {21} Preliminarily, we note that the Commission does not attack the authority of the district court to issue the writ of mandamus. See NMSA 1978, § 62-12-2 (1941) (authorizing mandamus action against the Commission); State ex rel Sandel v. N.M. Pub. Utility Comm’n, 1999-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 10-11, 127 N.M. 272, 980 P.2d 55 (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Bird v. Apodaca, 91 N.M. 279,
holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion holding that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate mechanism for challenging a trial courts grant of leave to amend a complaint holding that a writ of mandamus was an appropriate means of vacating a commission order holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances