delivered the opinion of the court :
The plaintiffs-appellees instituted an action on the chancery side of the superior court of Cook County against the named members of the Illinois Liquor Control Commission (State commission) and the Attorney General as the legal counsel fpr the commission charged with the duty of conducting hearings and proceedings to enforce the orders of the commission and the provisions of the aсt. The action was, according to an allegation, a proceeding for a declaratory judgment in a case of aсtual controversy under section 57 of the Civil Practice Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1947, chap, no, par. 181.1.) Injunctive relief was asked, provided the сourt- construed certain parts of the Illinois Liquor Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1947, chap. 43, pars. 94-195,) as the same were construed by the plaintiffs. Thе cause was heard solely on the complaint, the answer and the motion of the plaintiffs to strike vital portions of the answer аnd for judgment on the pleadings. The lower court struck portions of the answer and ordered that the licenses issue.
The facts on which thе action rests can be stated by summarizing the admitted facts pertaining to the individual plaintiffs: Each plaintiff has received a local retail license for the year ending July, 1950, each has made applications for a State retail liquor license with tender of thе requisite statutory license fee and has otherwise complied with all requirements of the Liquor Control Act. Plaintiffs Lira and Porten were сonvicted in 1949 of certain law violations — Lira of keeping a gambling house, and Porten of having slot machines while she held a State retail liquor license for the place. Neither of the convictions was reversed, set aside, annulled, or vacated. By reasоn whereof, the commission alleged, each is not entitled under the provisions of the Act to a State retail liquor license. Kinast hаs been told by the State commission it has been informed he knowingly allowed gambling in his tavern by an employee, that the commission was conducting an investigation of the charge, and that he was not entitled to a State retail liquor license until he is cleared.
The State commission attempted to justify its actions against the individual plaintiffs by claiming the provisions of the Liquor Control Act bestow upon it the duty and pоwer to “apply police power of the State of Illinois, insofar as such police power has been embodied in thе Illinois Liquor Control Act and other statutes directly and specifically governing the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, by investigating, upon due notice, by full hearing and. with due process of law, the eligibility of such applicants for Illinois State Retail Liquor licenses with a view to ascertaining and determining whether such applicants have complied with Illinois legislation fixing the qualifications and prerequisites for State licensure of establishments wherein liquor is to be sold or offered for sale. If the commission determines an applicant is not eligible for a State license, it is the duty of the commission to refuse such a license.” It is claimed this authority is conferred, and the duty is imрosed, not only by the intendment and tenor of the act, but by specific parts thereof.
It is the contention of all the plaintiffs that the Stаte commission does not possess the claimed statutory discretion to determine whether the holder of a local retail liquor license should have a State, retail liquor license issued to him, when all the requirements pertaining to the application therеfor and tender of the license fee have been fully complied with.
The lower court granted the motion to strike the vital portions of the answer, and entered an order wherein allegedly applicable sections of the State Liquor Control Act were сonstrued to place a mandatory duty on the State commission to issue a State retail liquor license .to each of the individuаl plaintiffs. The injunction issued restrained defendants from further proceeding with investigations and hearings in reference to those three аpplications, or to those of any member of plaintiff associations, who have obtained a local retail liquor licеnse, have made proper application to the State commission for a State retail liquor license, and accompanied it with the required license fee.
The defendants appealed directly to this court by reason of the State’s allegedly direct and manifestly important interest in the issue presented by this action. The plaintiffs do not question, the appeal. This court does not have appellate jurisdiction of the cause, and the appeal must be transferred to the Appellate Court, First District. Direct appeals may be taken to this court only according to the provisions of section 75 of the Civil Practice Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1947, chap, no, par. 199.) Where the State is interested, as a party or otherwise, the appeal can be taken dirеctly to this court only when the State has a direct and substantial interest, and that interest must be of a monetary character.- (Illinois Bell Tеlephone Co. v. Commerce Com.
The cause is transferred to the Appellate Court for the First District.
Cause transferred.