Judgment 1. The petitioner is a graduate in Commerce from the Magadh University. He is desirous of practising before the estate duty authorities. On July 24, 1981, the petitioner made an application for enrolment as Income-tax authorised representative before the Commissioner of Income-tax. This was allowed. Thus the petitioner has been practising as Income-tax authorised representative before the Income-tax authorities. On July 1, 1983, the petitioner received a letter dated June 25, 1983, stating that he was not entitled to appear before the Estate Duty authorities, a copy of which letter is annex. 2 to this writ application. In this writ application the petitioner, therefore, prays that this annexure be quashed and the authorities be directed to permit the petitioner to appear before the E.D. authorities. 2. Section 83 of the E.D. Act states, inter alia, that any person accountable for estate duty may be represented before the authority concerned by a person having such qualifications as may be prescribed. Rule 41 of the E.D. Rules states qualifications of certain persons to appear as authorised representatives. It would be necessary to read the aforesaid rule which is as follows: "41. Any person may, if authorised by the person accountable in writing in this behalf, represent him for the purpose of Section 83, provided- (i) such person is an income-tax practitioner as denned in Clause (iv) of Sub-section (2) of Sec. 61 of the Income-tax Act; (ii) he has at any time before the commencement of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958 (33 of 1958), appeared before any income-tax authority in his capacity as income-tax practitioner ; and (iii) he is not disqualified to represent an assessee in any income-tax proceeding by reason of any direction made under Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Income-tax Act." 3. A legal controversy has been raised in this case as to whether Rule 41(i) and (ii) have to be read conjunctively or they are to be read disjunctively. It is not in dispute that so far as Rule 41(iii) is concerned, it would be applicable to both Rule 41(i) and (ii), even if they are to be read disjunctively. Sub-clause (i) deals with a person who is an income-tax practitioner as defined in Clause (iv) of Sec. 61 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, Sec. 61(2)(iv) defines income-tax practitioner. Sub-clause (i) deals with a person who is an income-tax practitioner as defined in Clause (iv) of Sec. 61 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, Sec. 61(2)(iv) defines income-tax practitioner. It includes any person, who has acquired such qualification as the CBR has prescribed for this purpose. It is not in dispute that degree in Commerce is one of the educational qualifications prescribed by the CBR for the purpose aforesaid. It would thus be seen that the petitioner would be entitled to appear as authorised representative before the E.D. authorities if the two clauses are to be read disjunctively, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner fulfils the qualifications as mentioned in Rule 41(i) and is not disqualified by virtue of Rule 41(iii) of the E.D. Rules. 4. Ordinarily, when two clauses are separated by a semi-colon, they would have to be read disjunctively. That is why there is semi-colon after the first sub-clause and the second sub-clause and "and" before the third sub-clause. Examining the matter from the point of view of commonsense it does not appear that there can be any valid reason for confining the authorised representatives to such persons, who had appeared before any income-tax authority in his capacity as income-tax practitioner before the commencement of E.D. (Amendment) Act, 1958. It appears to us that the rule contemplated that two classes of persons would be recognised as authorised representatives. The first class was of those who were I.T. practitioners within the meaning of the law. The purpose of the second clause is to give a benefit to those who may not come within the definition of I.T. practitioners as denned in Sec. 61 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, but had been appearing before the I.T. authorities in the capacity of I.T. practitioner. No useful purpose can be served if the rule is meant to be confined to those who had appeared as I.T. practitioner (although not fulfilling the qualification as laid down in the Act of 1922) before the 1958 amendment. 5. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in [1982] 137 ITR 819 (Sita Ram Gupta V/s. Union of India). For the reasons which we have discussed, we do not subscribe to the view taken in the said decision. 5. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in [1982] 137 ITR 819 (Sita Ram Gupta V/s. Union of India). For the reasons which we have discussed, we do not subscribe to the view taken in the said decision. We are thus of the view that Rule 41(i) and Rule 41(iii) have to be read together being joined by the word "and" similar is the position with respect to Rule 41(ii) and (iii). In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this writ application. This application is accordingly allowed, but without costs.