Opinion by
Thе only question presented by this appeal is whether the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board may renew a restaurant liquor license when the application for renewal is filed 73 days after the final date as fixed by statute and 13 days after the license had expired. The board refused thе renewal. The court below reversed the board and ordered it tо issue the license.
John B. Pesognelli has, since April 13, 1955, been the holder оf a restaurant liquor license issued by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board fоr premises situate at 427 McKean Avenue, Charleroi, Washington County, Pennsylvаnia. In that particular county li *322 cense' years terminate on each April 30. 1 Mr. Pesognelli failed to file an. application for a renewal of his license to expire on April 30, 1960 until Mаy 13, 1959, and then only after his arrest for unlicensed sales of alcoholic beverages. The reason given by the applicant for failure to file his application for renewal within time was that he was ill and in a sеvere anxiety state, evidenced by a confused mind, and an inability to remember things, to think clearly or to concentrate.
There is nothing in the Liquor Code granting the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board the right to alter, modify or сhange the provisions thereof. To grant such right would render meaningless any restrictions or restraints upon it or other administrative agencies.The language of the act is clear and precise: “All applications for renewal of licenses under the provisions of this articlе shall be filed at least sixty days before the expiration date of the same and not thereafter.” The legislature went to the extreme of adding to the basic language the phrase “and not thereafter.”
. An аdministrative tribunal cannot be given an unlimited or arbitrary discretion, for to do so would re-
*323
suit in a government of men instead of a government of laws. Tliе legislature may grant tribunals a broad discretion in the application of standards, but these standards must be limited in scope by provisions in the statute:
Hotel Casey Co. v. Ross et al.,
“The power and authority to be exercised by administrative commissiоns must be conferred by legislative language clear and unmistakable. A doubtful power does not exist. Such tribunals are extra judicial. They should act within the strict and exact limits,defined.” Gre
en et al. v. Milk Control Commission,
In a similar proceeding we held that no right existed in the Workmen’s Compensation Board to entertain a “nunc pro tunc” filing of a claim:
Pickens v. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund et al.,
Order reversed.
Notes
Section 470(a) of the Liquor Code, Act оf April 12, 1951, P. L. 90, 47 PS §4-470, as amended, provides,.inter alia:..“All applications foi-rеnewal of . licenses'under the-provisions of this article shall be filed at least sixty days before the expiration date of the same and nоt .thereafter.” .
Section 402 of the Act, 47 PS §4-402, as amended, provides, inter' аlia: “The board shall, by regulation, fix the license yéar fór éach separate' district so that the - expiration dates shall be uniform in each of the several districts but staggered as to the State.”
Regulation 100 of . the • Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, adopted June 26, 1952, provides, inter alia: “Seсtion 100.01. Assignment of Counties to Districts. Under and pursuant to Section 402 of the Liquor Code, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board by this regulation divides the State into four license districts, as follows: . . . Counties In District No. 3 Expiration Date: April 30 . . . Washington. ...”