With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the violation would exist "in perpetuity.” Lake Shore Riding Academy, 38 Ill. App. 3d at 1003, 350 N.E.2d at 20. This analysis comports with earlier decisions of this court. In Armond v. Sawyer (1990), 205 Ill. App. 3d 936, 563 N.E.2d 900, the plaintiffs liquor license was renewed semi-annually for 12 years in violation of a referendum, the existence of which was known to the plaintiff. In holding that the city was not estopped from revoking the plaintiffs license, despite the unauthorized renewals, we refused to characterize the renewals as affirmative acts by the city, especially since the plaintiff was aware of the referendum. Armond, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 939, 563 N.E.2d at 902-03; see also Leong v. Village of Schaumburg (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 60, 69, 550 N.E.2d 1073, 1079-80 (<HOLDING>); People ex rel. Satas v. City of Chicago

A: holding that the commonwealth cannot revoke a drivers license without due process required by the constitution
B: holding governments repudiation of license gave patentee right to terminate license
C: holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer
D: holding that the village did not waive its right to revoke the plaintiffs liquor license on the grounds that he had been convicted of a felony even though it renewed the license through a routine procedure whereby renewal notices were sent to all licensed facilities
D.