O.H. Mootham, J. - (1.) 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). - 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.;