Original jurisdiction in case of Pennsylvania Barber Schools, Inc. v. Anthony Alfano, Thomas C. Bigler, Stanley O. Thomas and Robert V. Vavro, individually and acting as State Board of Barber Examiners, c/o Department of Professional and Occupational Affairs.
Benjamin F. Levy, with him C. Max Ivins, for plaintiff.
Robert E. Rains, Deputy Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, for defendants.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
This matter is before us in our original jurisdiction. Plaintiff, an incorporated association of barber schools operating in Pennsylvania, filed a petition for declaratory judgment, seeking to have this Court declare Section 3(a) of the Act of June 19, 1931, P.L. 589, as amended, 63 P.S. § 553(a) unconstitutional. The basis of the challenge is that pupils in plaintiff's barber schools are required to serve a substantial apprenticeship, whereas students who attend schools of cosmetology are not so required. We do not reach the merits of this challenge, for the defendants have filed preliminary objections raising the question of
whether plaintiff has standing to bring this action. We must sustain the preliminary objections.
This action is instituted under the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Act of June 18, 1923, P.L. 840, as amended, 12 P.S. § 831 et seq. Section 2 of that Act, 12 P.S. § 832, provides:
"Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise, and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder." (Emphasis supplied.)
The law is quite clear in Pennsylvania that the fact that plaintiff will be generally adversely affected does not in itself put plaintiff in the class authorized to seek a declaratory judgment. The Pennsylvania law with regard to standing to bring an action for a declaratory judgment raising a constitution issue is ably and completely reviewed by then Justice, now Chief Justice, Jones in Kauffman v. Osser, 441 Pa. 150, 271 A.2d 236 (1970).
The plaintiff attempts to avoid the impediments of the existing law by relying on the recent Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision in Moore v. Jamieson, 451 Pa. 299, 306 A.2d 283 (1973). In that case, the issue was the propriety of Rule 301 of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas which then prohibited an attorney from representing more than 10 criminal defendants under specified circumstances. The plaintiff, Moore, was an attorney who challenged the Rule, both from his position as an attorney and from the client's right to select an attorney. The ...