ORDER Oza, C.J.-l. This petition and Misc. Petitions Nos. 334, 335 and 336 all of 1983, raise identical questions and are, therefore, being disposed of simultaneously. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner which is a public limited company with its head office at Calcutta and branch office at Bhopal. Shri S.N. Nag is alleged to be the District Manager of the Company who is posted at the branch office at Bhopal. It is alleged that the petitioner Company manufactures weighing, testing and counting machines. For the assessment period 1-1-1978 to 31-12-1978 an order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 31-10-1981. Against this order an appeal was filed which was disposed of on 23-8-1982 and against this order an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. 3. This appeal preferred by the petitioner was fixed for hearing on 5-5-1983. Shri S.V. Vaidya is an employee of the Company and was authorised to appear for the Company in the appeal. He was not well and therefore an express telegram was sent on 4-4-1983 to the President, Board of Revenue, seeking an adjournment. A copy of this telegram is filed along with the petition. On the same date, an application also was sent for adjournment confirming the facts stated in the telegram but it appears that the telegram did not reach Gwalior in time and the President, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 5-5-1983 dismissed the appeal in default because of the absence of the appellant. This order passed by the President, Board of Revenue, was communicated to the petitioner on 17-6-1983 and the appellant learnt that the appeal has been dismissed in default. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for restoration on 27-6-1983 and along with this application submitted a copy of the telegram and a copy of the application for adjournment. 4. This application for restoration was rejected by the President of the Board of Revenue on 22-7-1983, and therefore, the present petition is filed. 5. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for restoration on 27-6-1983 and along with this application submitted a copy of the telegram and a copy of the application for adjournment. 4. This application for restoration was rejected by the President of the Board of Revenue on 22-7-1983, and therefore, the present petition is filed. 5. It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned President felt that an employee of the Company was not the person who could appear for the Company and, therefore, rejected the application for rehearing on the ground that reasons for absence are not at all material as ordinarily an appeal is argued by counsel or a tax adviser, and therefore, the employee of the Company, if he was unwell, his absence was of no consequence and in this view of the matter the learned President rejected ... the application submitted by the petitioner-appellant for rehearing of the appeal. It was contended by learned counsel that in so doing the learned President of the Board failed to consider sub-section (1) of section 21 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act which provides for an employee of a Company to appear before the taxing authorities. It was contended that Rule 59 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules also contemplates that persons authorised may appear before the Appellate Tribunal and sub-rule (4) of Rule 59 itself contemplates that if for sufficient reasons a person authorised under subsection (1) of section 21 is not present, the application could be entertained and the appeal could be reheard. It was, therefore, contended that the learned President of the Board did not consider this aspect of the matter and refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law i.e., sub-rule (4) of Rule 59 and therefore this petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 331 of 1983 (M/s M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. Bhopal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. and another) decided by this Court on 12th October 1984 where is, under similar circumstances, this Court allowed writ petition and directed the President to rehear the appeal. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand contended that under sub rule (4) of Rule 59 the President of the Board bad a discretion to entertain an application for rehearing or to reject. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand contended that under sub rule (4) of Rule 59 the President of the Board bad a discretion to entertain an application for rehearing or to reject. That having been done no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained. However, the learned Government Advocate did not dispute that under Section 21 (l) an employee of the Company could appear for the appellant and the fact that an application and an express telegram were sent on 4-5-1983 which unfortunately did not reach the Board Office before the hearing is also not disputed. 6. Section 21 (1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act provides: "21. Appearance before taxing authorities-(1) Any dealer who is entitled or required to attend or appear before any officer appointed under Section 3 in connection with any proceedings under this Act, otherwise than when required under section 35 to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation, may attend or appear by a person authorised by him in writing in this behalf being a relative of, or a person regularly employed by, the dealer or a legal practitioner or a chartered accountant or a sales tax practitioner." Similarly, Rule 59 (4) reads: "(4) When an appeal or revision is dismissed or decided ex-parte under sub-rule (3) the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, may, within 30 days from the date of communication of such order apply to the appellate or revising authority for readmission or re-hearing of the appeal or revision. as the case may be, and if the appellate or revising authority is satisfied that the appellant or the applicant or a person duly authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 21, was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal or revision was called for hearing it may readmit or rehear the appeal or revision as the case may be, upon such terms including terms as to cost and conditions as it may think fit." Section 21 (1) provides that any person authorised by the appellant being a relative or a person regularly employed or a legal practitioner or a chartered accountant or a sales-tax practitioner could appear on behalf of the assessee before the taxing authorities. This, therefore clearly provides that an employee of the Company who is acquainted with the matter and is authorised to appear on behalf of the Company is a person who under sub-section (1) of Section 21 is entitled to represent the Company before the Board in an appeal. 7. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 59 clearly lays down that if a person duly authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 21 was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing, the appeal or revision could be re-admitted or re-heard. It is not in dispute that the employee of the appellant Company was not keeping good health and along with the application a medical certificate also was sent. An express telegram was also sent seeking an adjournment. These facts are not in dispute, but what the learned President of the Board ruled is that in an appeal before the Board of Revenue normally an advocate, a chartered accountant or tax-consultant appears and, therefore, if an employee of the Company was not well, his absence was not at all material and, therefore, even if he shows good cause for his non-appearance, sub-rule (4) of Rule 59 does not provide to condone the absence and re-hear the appeal. It is therefore apparent that the learned President of the Board of Revenue omitted to consider the impact of authorisation under sub-section (1) of Section 21 which has specifically been mentioned in sub-rule (4) of Rule 59. Learned President, therefore, omitted to consider that this employee of the Company was authorised to appear on behalf of the Company under sub-section (1) of Section 21 and if there was sufficient cause for his absence, application under sub rule (4) of Rule 59 deserved to be accepted.' Illness supported by a medical certificate which is not disputed could not be held to be not a sufficient cause and the President has not held that this was not a sufficient cause. What the President feels is that the appeal could have been argued by a counsel but unfortunately omitted to take notice of Section 21 (1) read with sub-rule (4) of Rule 59 and by so doing refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under sub-rule (4) of Rule 59. Under these circumstances, therefore, the orders passed by the learned President of the Board of Revenue on 5-5-1983 and 22-7-1983 cannot be maintained. 8. Under these circumstances, therefore, the orders passed by the learned President of the Board of Revenue on 5-5-1983 and 22-7-1983 cannot be maintained. 8. In similar circumstances, we have taken the same view in Misc. Petition No. 331 of 1983 decided on 12th October 1984. 9. The petition is therefore, allowed. The orders passed by the President, Board of Revenue, dated 5-5-1983 and 22-7-1983 are hereby quashed and it is directed that the learned President will rehear the appeal and dispose it of in accordance with law. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.