JUDGMENT O.H. Mootham C.J. - This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated the 29th July 1957 dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant formerly earned his livelihood lay appearing before the various Sales Tax authorities as the agent of dealers who were sought to be made liable for the payment of sales tax. It appears that it was his practice to obtain a special power of attorney from each dealer whom he represented. Exception was taken to his appearance before these authorities, and the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Lucknow, by orders dated the 21st February and the 5th November, 1955, and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax by an order dated the 25th August, 1955, held respectively that the appellant had no right to appear and plead before them under the Sales Tax Act on behalf of a dealer. The appellant then filed a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in which he challenged the validity of these orders and prayed, first, that they be quashed by a writ of certiorari and, secondly, that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the Judge (Appeals) and the Judge (Revisions) to permit the appellant to appear and plead in appeals and revisions pending before those officials. That petition was dismissed by the order which is the subject of the present appeal. 2. The rules regulating the appearance of parties before the Judge (Appeals) and the Judge (Revisions) are rules 68 (4), 69(4) and 69(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Temporary Rules 1948. They are in the following terms: "68 (4). - On the date of the hearing, if the parties are present, the Judge (Appeals) shall give the "appellant and the Sales Tax Officer or a lawyer or a registered accountant appointed by either of them in this behalf, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and may pass such orders as he thinks fit to dispose of the appeal. 69 (4). - If the Judge, after examining the record, and hearing the applicant or his counsel, is satisfied that there is no force in the application, he may summarily reject it. 69 (7). 69 (4). - If the Judge, after examining the record, and hearing the applicant or his counsel, is satisfied that there is no force in the application, he may summarily reject it. 69 (7). - Any applicant or opposite party shall be entitled to have his case argued before the Judge (Revisions) by any practising lawyer of the High Court of the Uttar Pradesh or of the District Judge's Court of any district or a registered accountant." 3. Rule 77-A says that unless otherwise provided in the Act or the rules anything which is required to be done by the Act or rules by a dealer (except when he is required to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation) may be done by a lawyer or registered accountant or an authorised agent appointed by the dealer in writing in this behalf. 4. The effect of these rules was considered by this Court in Radhey Shyam v. The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow and others, 1957 A.L.J. 700 and it was there held that the rules made it clear that while an agent has a right to act, that is to present an application, to receive notices and the like, the right to plead is restricted to the applicant himself or a qualified pleader or a registered accountant engaged by him. This decision which prima facie concludes the present appeal against the appellant, is sought to be distinguished by Mr. S.N. Kacker on the ground that after that case had been decided a new rule, 77-B, has been added and that that rule affects the interpretation which should be placed on rules 68 (4) and 69 (7). Rule 77-B reads thus:- "77-B. - Where a lawyer or registered accountant is found guilty of misconduct in connection with any sales tax proceeding by the authority empowered to take disciplinary action against the members of the profession to which he belongs, or it any authorised agent is found guilty of misconduct or corruption by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, the Commissioner of Sales Tax or such other officer may direct that he shall not be entitled to represent a dealer under these rules." 5. Mr. Mr. Kacker relies upon the words "he shall not be entitled to represent a dealer under these rules", words which he says necessarily imply that an authorised agent has a general right to represent a dealer. We are unable to accept this view of the effect of rule 77-B. We think that the words "he shall not be entitled to represent a dealer under these rules" mean no more than he shall not be entitled to represent a dealer is those cases in which under the rules he is entitled to represent him. A dealer may be represented by an agent before a Sales Tax Officer, and the purpose and effect of the latter part of this rule is to confer upon the Commissioner the power to direct that an authorised agent shall not be entitled to represent a dealer before the Sales Tax Officer or any other Officer before whom the rules may give him a right of audience. 6. In our opinion the insertion of rule 77-B does not affect the meaning to be placed upon rules 68 and 69 and therefore this appeal must fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.