Reimel

In 1951 the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, claiming to act pursuant to authority conferred *174 upon it by section 22 of article XX of the California Constitution and sections 25006 and 25750 of the Business and Professions Code, 1 promulgated rule 105(a) (Cal. Admin. Code, tit-. 4; § 105, subpar. (a)). With minor modifications, this rule has been in effect continuously since 1951 and today reads as follows: “105. Beer Price Posting, (a) The schedule of prices for the sale of beer, as required by Section 25000 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, shall be filed with the department on a form prescribed by the department ..... Contract prices for future deliveries of beer and quantity discounts shall not be filed with the department. ’ ’

Plaintiffs, operators of large chain grocery stores offering beer for sale, petitioned the department to eliminate that part of.the rule proscribing quantity discounts. After a hearing, the department denied the petition. Plaintiffs then sought and obtained a writ of mandate in the superior court requiring the deletion of the reference to quantity discounts in rule 105(a). The department has appealed from that ruling.

As we shall…

In my view the opinion prepared for the Court of Appeal by Presiding Justice Devine and concurred in by Justice Rattigan and Justice Christian (reported in (Cal.App.) 62 Cal.Rptr. 914 ) properly construes and applies the constitutional and statutory provisions relied upon by appellants, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and its director, in their efforts to sustain the rule forbidding quantity discounts on wholesale sales of beer. Furthermore, I think it adequately discusses and correctly resolves adversely to the department the questions presented on this appeal. 1 *185 For the reasons therein stated, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

McComb, J., and Peters, J., concurred.

Respondents’ petition for a rehearing was denied September 11, 1968. McComb, J., Peters, J., and Burke, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Presiding Justice Devine’s opinion, with deletions appropriate to this dissent, is as follows (brackets together, in this manner [ ], are used to indicate deletions from the opinion of the Court of Appeal; see Simmons v. Civil Service Emp. Ins. Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 381, 383, fn. 1 [ 19 Cal. Rptr. 662 , 369 P.2d 262 ]) :