Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of In the Matter of Revocation of Importing Distributor License, No. ID-1208, Issued to Camiel's Beverage Co., 2619 Aramingo Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19125, No. 1921 October Sessions, 1971.
Alexander J. Jaffurs, Assistant Attorney General, with him Albert B. Miller, Special Assistant Attorney General, Michael Minkin, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellant.
Neil W. Burd, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
This is an appeal by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. The brief and to the point opinion of Judge E. A. Doty is quoted in full:
"This matter is before the Court for consideration of the appeal of Camiel's Beverage Co. from an Order dated October 13, 1971 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board imposing a fine of $300.00 upon the appellant. The appellant contends that these allegations were 'vague, lacked specificity as to time, place and person and were so insufficiently detailed as to prevent the appellant and its counsel from preparing a defense thereto. . . .' After a careful consideration of the entire record and the applicable law, we are convinced that appellant's contentions have merit.
"It is well settled that administrative bodies such as the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board are bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Hotchkiss Liquor License, 169 Pa. Super. Ct. 506 (1951). Due notice of a liquor law revocation proceeding means at least the licensee must be informed of the fact that he is charged with specific violations of the liquor license or regulations. DeLucca's Liquor License, 124 Pa. Super. Ct. 500 (1937).
"In this case, the Board did not specify what specifically the appellant is charged with having done. As an example charge No. 1 charges credit sales by the licensee but does not state to whom the credit sales were allegedly made, in what amounts and for what merchandise. Further charge No. 2 alleges a falsification of records, but does not set forth what records were allegedly falsified, nor in what manner. The Board's charge No. 3 alleges the offering of an inducement to promote the sale of malt or brewed beverages, but does not set forth to whom the inducement was allegedly given, nor what the inducement was. Charge No. 4 cites an alleged neglect to maintain records in conformity with PLCB regulations, without stating what records were allegedly in violation of regulations and in what respects. Charge No. 5 alleges a failure to notify the Board within 20 days of the receipt of notice of dishonored checks received for malt beverages. Once again, the charge does not state whose checks were dishonored, when and in what amounts. The last of the PLCB's charges, charge No. 6 alleges that the licensee failed within five days of notice of dishonor to ...