Maryland Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Professional Land Surveyors v. Armacost

Davidson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1976, the appellant, the Maryland Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors (Board), entered orders suspending the licenses of the appellees. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County reversed on the ground that the Board had violated Md. Code (1957, 1975 Repl. Vol.), Art. 75V2, § 17(c) by failing to schedule hearings within six months of the date on which the charges against the appellees were filed. 1 The Court of Special Appeals dismissed the Board’s appeal on the ground that the Board lacked standing.

See Md. Rule 1035 b 1. We issued a writ of certiorari and shall affirm. The question here is whether the Board has standing to appeal from a trial court’s reversal of the Board’s decision on a procedural matter. The resolution of this issue depends upon the Board’s statutory authority.

Typically, administrative agencies perform quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions. Department of Natural Resources v. Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp., 274 Md. 211, 220 , 334 A.2d 514, 521 (1974). See 1 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 1.09 at 65 (1958). Generally, an administrative ³⁵⁵ agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity cannot appeal when one of its decisions is reversed by a court of competent jurisdiction unless the authority to appeal to a higher court is provided by law.

When an administrative agency functions in this capacity, it is immaterial whether the issue involved relates to a matter of procedure or substance. In either event, absent statutory authority, it has no standing to appeal. Employment Security Admin. v. Smith, 282 Md. 267, 269-70 , 383 A.2d 1108, 1110 (1978); Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects v. McWilliams, 270 Md. 383, 385-87 , 311 A.2d 792, 794-95 (1973); Maryland Bd. of Pharmacy v. Peco, Inc., 234 Md. 200, 202-03 , 198 A.2d 273, 274 (1964); Board of Zoning Appeals v. McKinney, 174 Md. 551, 561-62 , 199 A. 540, 544-45 (1938). Ct., Board of Liquor License Comm’rs v. Leone, 249 Md. 263, 265-68, 271 , 239 A.2d 82, 84-87 (1968). 2 Like many other administrative agencies, the Board in this case performs a variety of functions.

When the Board, in a disciplinary action, suspends a license, 3 it performs a quasi-judicial function because it makes factual determinations and decides contested issues. Peco, 234 Md. at 202 , 198 A.2d at 274 . When it makes rules and adopts a code of ethics governing the practice of engineering and land ³⁵⁶ surveying, 4 or exercises its limited powers of enforcement, 5 it performs quasi-legislative functions. Leone, 249 Md. at 270-71 , 239 A.2d at 87 .

When functioning in its quasi-judicial capacity, however, the Board can appeal only if authorized by statute. There is nothing in the nature of the functions performed by this Board which would justify a departure from the rule that it is the Legislature which determines when an agency should have a right to appeal in order to protect the public interest. McKinney, 174 Md. at 561 , 199 A. at 545 . Article 75%, which established the Board, does not expressly provide it with a right of appeal.

Nor does that Article authorize the Board to be a party to any and all legal proceedings. Compare Smith, 282 Md. at 271-72 , 383 A.2d at 1111 ; State Tax Comm'n v. Western Md. Ry. Co., 188 Md. 240, 245 , 52 A.2d 615, 617 (1947). The limited enforcement powers set forth in §§ 8(d) and (e) cannot be construed to provide a right of appeal.

Article 75%, § 17(g), however, does provide that "any person aggrieved” by a final decision of the Board in denying, suspending, or refusing to renew a license may appeal. Similarly, the Administrative Procedure Act, Md. Code (1957, 1978 Repl. Vol.), Art. 41, § 255(a), provides that “any party ³⁵⁷ aggrieved” by a