The opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
I concur in part and dissent in part.
I agree that the evidence substantially supports the findings of the Department that the minimum retail price schedules were published prior to their effective dates in a trade journal of general circulation in accordance with the former requirements of Business and Professions Code section 24755, subdivision (b). I also agree that the Department properly held that the licensee violated the retail price maintenance provisions of section 24755. But I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the purported prohibition in Business and Professions Code section 24755.1 against license suspension or revocation is constitutional and properly qualifies the power conferred upon the Department by article XX, section 22 of the Constitution to license, and to deny, suspend or revoke any specific license. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s holding that the Department improperly ordered revocation, of the licensee’s license contrary to the provisions of section 24755.1.
For the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Kirby v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd., ante, p. 1200 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 459 P.2d 657 ], it is my opinion that the prohibition in section 24755.1 against license suspension or revocation is unconstitutional because it limits and impairs the constitutional power to suspend or revoke licenses granted the Department by the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of section 22 of article XX. I further conclude that since the provisions of section 24755.1 are clearly inseverable, the entire section is inoperative. The licensee’s argument that the section has vitality here must therefore fall.
I would affirm the decision of the Department.
Tobriner, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied November 19, 1969. Tobriner, J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.