Thus, the function of the Superior Court is to examine the record to determine whether or not the Commission's findings are based on substantial evidence. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission v. Allen, Del.Supr., 227 A.2d 484 (1967). When a finding is based on substantial evidence, the Superior Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Commission even though it would have reached a different conclusion.

A jurisdictional protest is not in itself material evidence of opposition but it creates an opportunity to present such evidence on the record at the hearing. A protest becomes material evidence of ". . . an absence of demand for the outlet in the locality . . .", Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Con. Com'n v. Allen, Del.Supr., 227 A.2d 484 (1967), only when it becomes a part of the record. And this is significant because the Commission's decision must be based solely on the record, Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Con. Com'n v. Allen, supra, and by statute "the record shall include the evidence."

The fact that the Appeals Commission launched a further inquiry into the circumstances of the case and analyzed the credibility of the information presents a substantial issue for review. 4 Del. C. § 541 (c); Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and Colonial Corp. of Delaware, Inc. v. Allen, 227 A.2d 484, 486 (Del. 1967) (holding that the Commission's decision must be based solely on the record before it). Now, the Court turns to the question of whether Patel and Commissioner Cordrey will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. Speculative harm is not sufficient to meet this prong of the analysis.