With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contends that the Commission should have granted his motion for sanctions against the local liquor control commissioner. Grants of power to administrative agencies are delegations of authority by the legislature, grounded in the statute and not in common law, and, as such, must be strictly construed. (See also Diederich v. Rose (1907), 228 Ill. 610, 615, 81 N.E. 1140.) The statute delegating the power must explicitly provide for the specific grant of power. (McKenzie v. McIntosh (1964), 50 Ill. App. 2d 370, 377, 200 N.E.2d 138.) Plaintiff has cited no section of the Dramshop Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 43, par. 94 et seq.), nor any case law to authorize the Commission to issue sanctions against the local commissioner. (Cf. Paoli v. Mason (1945), 325 Ill. App. 197, 209, 59 N.E.2d 499 (<HOLDING>).) Accordingly, in the absence of statutory

A: holding the commissioner must sympathetically listen to local concerns
B: holding various actions of state insurance commissioner insufficient evidence of agreement to bribe a public official
C: holding local commissioner not liable to licensee for official act in revoking license
D: holding that where patent owner licensor retained substantial rights under license agreement licensee did not have an independent right to sue for infringement
C.