Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in case of Arthur A. Banks v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, No. 360 M.D. 1982.
Norman M. Yoffe, Norman M. Yoffe, P.C., for appellant.
Felix Thau, Assistant Counsel, with him Gary F. DiVito, Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Judges Rogers, MacPhail and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 160]
Arthur A. Banks (Appellant) has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County affirming a decision of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) to revoke his restaurant liquor license for premises known as "Otto's Atmosphere II" located in the city of Harrisburg.*fn1 We affirm.
The revocation of Appellant's liquor license was based on the following three violations: 1) permitting beer to be furnished or given to minors, on March 27, 1982, in violation of Section 493 of the Liquor Code
[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 161]
(Code);*fn2 2) permitting the use of a controlled substance on the premises, on February 6, 1982, in violation of Section 471 of the Code, 47 P.S. § 4-471 and 3) selling liquor, on February 6, 1982, for consumption off the licensed premises in violation of Section 406 of the Code, 47 P.S. § 4-406. In the instant appeal Appellant's challenges are limited to the first two violation findings.*fn3
The first challenge made by Appellant is to the constitutionality of Section 471 of the Code which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Upon learning of any violation of this act or any laws of this Commonwealth relating to liquor, alcohol or malt or brewed beverages . . . or upon any other sufficient cause shown, the board may . . . cite such licensee to appear before it or its examiner . . . to show cause why such license should not be suspended or revoked or a fine imposed. (Emphasis added.)
Appellant contends that the catch-all provision "or upon any other sufficient cause shown", which provided the basis for the controlled substance citation, constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power under Article II, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. II, § 1 and violates substantive due process because it is impermissibly vague. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
We first observe that this Court has specifically held that the "other sufficient cause" provision of Section 471 is not impermissibly vague, indefinite or overbroad. Bresch v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 192, ...