Maryland Board of Pharmacy v. Peco, Inc.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal by the Maryland Board of Pharmacy is from an order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County reversing a decision of the Board denying an application for a permit to establish a pharmacy by Peco, Inc. The Board’s decision was based on a “so-called” regulation purportedly adopted pursuant to Code (1957), Art. 43, sec. 268(c), dealing with location and layout. The court found that the regulation was inconsistent with Code (1957), Art. 43, sec. 250, and found as a fact that the requirements set up were unreasonable under the circumstances of this case and had no' reasonable relation ²⁰² to public health or safety as contemplated by sec. 268(c). The appellee moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the Board had no standing to appeal.

Since we think the motion must be granted we do not reach the merits of the case. Code (1963 Supp.), Art. 43, sec. 268(d) provides for an appeal by any person to whom the Board has refused to issue a permit, or whose permit has been revoked, but it does not authorize any appeal by any other person. It is conceded, however, that the Board is an “agency” as defined in Code (1963 Supp.), Art. 41, sec. 244 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the provisions of that Act are applicable. Sec. 255(a) provides: “Right to review. — Any party aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case, * * * is entitled to judicial review thereof under this subtitle.” Sec. 256 provides: “An aggrieved party may secure a review of any final judgment of the circuit court by appeal to the Court of Appeals.” Code (1957), Art. 5, sec. 1 provides that “[a]ny party may appeal to the Court of Appeals from any final judgment or determination of a court of law in any civil suit or action, * * *.” It is well settled that the provisions of Art. 5, sec. 1 do not apply to cases where the trial court exercises a special or limited jurisdiction conferred by statute.

Simpler v. State, Use of Boyd, 223 Md. 456, 460 , and cases cited. We are not here concerned with the