JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. ON 24-3-1984 we dismissed this writ petition by a short order. We now proceed to give our reasons. 2. THE petitioners, who, in previous years, held, as they say, licence to carry on business as excise contractors, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the directions issued by the Excise Commissioner to all the District Magistrates that a person inspite of authorisation by a duly executed power of attorney, should not be permitted to offer any bid on behalf of another at the excise auctions proposed to be held for the ensuing year 1984-85. It may be stated that in Paragraph 373 (4) of the U. P. Excise Manual a provision was made for bids being offered by a person on behalf of another provided he held a power of attorney of that other person. Paragraph 373 (4) which has since been deleted, read as under :- " 373 (4)-No person will be allowed to bid at any auction on behalf of another person unless he holds a written authority properly stamped from such other person to do so, or such other person is present at the auction and ratifies the bid made on his behalf. The fact that a bid has been made on behalf of another person shall be noted in the sale list, and if it be finally accepted, the principal will be held responsible for the amount of bid." 3. THE Excise Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 41 of the U. P. Excise Act has now framed the U. P. Excise (Ist Amendment) Rules, 1984 in which it is provided as under : " THE following conditions shall apply to all sales under the auction system and will be inserted at the foot of the sale proclamation to be issued by the Excise Commissioner :- (i) No person shall be allowed to bid at any auction sale unless- (a) he produces a solvency certificate in Form Q-39 granted by the Tahsildar of the Tehsil in which he resides. It should be duly countersigned by the Collector or the Additional Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf; and (b) his name is included in the consolidated list of Solvency certificate holders circulated by the Excise Commissioner Uttar Pradesh." 4. It should be duly countersigned by the Collector or the Additional Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf; and (b) his name is included in the consolidated list of Solvency certificate holders circulated by the Excise Commissioner Uttar Pradesh." 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that under the old Excise Rules (Paragraph 373) there was a complete prohibition on a person offering bid on behalf of another but the prohibition was not to apply to a person who held valid power of attorney on behalf of that other person and, therefore, it was possible for one person to offer his bids at different excise auctions through his agents. This right to participate in the excise auctions has been seriously affected by the communication issued by the Excise Commissioner to the District Magistrates by which an agent has been completely prohibited from offering a bid on behalf of his principal inspite of the agent being duly authorised by a valid power of attorney. The right to participate in the auction, it is contended, cannot be destroyed by executive instructions issued by the Excise Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that the new rules, which were framed by the Excise Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 41 of the U. P. Excise Act were outside the scope of the rule making of the Excise Commissioner as they fall within the ambit of Section 40 under which only the State Government has the competence to make rules. 5. WE have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. IT is well settled by a series of Supreme Court decisions that a person has no right, not even fundamental right, to carry on trade or business in intoxicants and that the State has the exclusive privilege to carry on the said business. In order to confer this privliege on any person for a valuable consideration, the State is competent to make regulatory provisions-See State of Bombay v. P. N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 , Coverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner Ajmer, AIR 1954 SC 220 and Har Shanker v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, AIR 1975 SC 1121 . It is also settled that a person can act through his agent. It is also settled that a person can act through his agent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the right to act through an agent has been recognised by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravula Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1956 SC 604 and, therefore, the Excise Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the rights of the petitioners to act through their agents particularly when they could appoint an agent by executing a power of attorney as provided by Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. 7. IT is, no doubt, true that a person can act either personally or through an agent but the question is whether a person has a right to act through agents and if so whether the said right is a substantive right. 8. THE vakalatnama executed in favour of a lawyer by his client is also a power of attorney. THE provision to be represented by a lawyer has been made in Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THEre are, however, a number of statutory Tribunals with all the trappings of the courts, e. g. U. P. Public Service Tribunals, Industrial Tribunals etc. where a person cannot as of right appear through a lawyer. THE right to act through the agent or to appear through an agent is, therefore, a procedural right and not a substantive right See-A. N. Rangaswami v. THE Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1953 Mad. 447 ; Jagjit Singh v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 Hyd. 28; A. N. Rangaswamy v. THE Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1954 Mad. 553 and Mulchand Gulabchand v. Mukund Shirram Bhide, AIR 1952 Bom. 296 . Even the Supreme Court decision in Ravula Subba Rao's case (supra) upon which reliance was placed by the petitioners in support of their arguments that they have a right to act through agent, lays down with reference to the Powers of Attorney Act as under :- " THE object of this section is to effectuate instruments executed by an agent but not in accordance with the rule of the common law and the enactment is more procedural than substantive. It does not confer on a person a right to act through agents. It does not confer on a person a right to act through agents. It presupposes that the agent has the authority to act on behalf of the principal, and protects acts done by him in exercise of that authority but in his own name. " In view of the above Supreme Court decision, the petitioners cannot legally claim that they have a substantive right to act through agents and, for that matter, offer their bids at the excise auctions through their agents. 9. THE deletion of Para 373 (4) of the U. P. Excise Manual is itself indicative of the legislative intent that the petitioners have to be personally present at the time of the auction and cannot, in those auctions, act through their agents. 10. SRI Brijesh Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has brought to our notice a decision of the Division Bench comprising of brothers Gopi Nath and Khare, JJ. by which a writ petition Sardar Mohan Singh v. State of U. P., raising similar questions was dismissed at Allahabad on March 16, 1984. We are in respectful agreement with the said decision but in coming to the conclusion that the writ petition should be dismissed, we have given our own reasons. In view of the fact that the petitioners do not have a substantive right to act through their agents, the other questions raised by them need not be considered. 11. WE find no merits in the petition which is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.