dissenting.
[¶27] As an initial observation, I must disagree with the majority opinion’s affir-mance of the order of the Board of Embalmers. The order on appeal is the order of the district court dismissing Veile’s petition for review. Even if the majority opinion is correct in determining that the dismissal of Veile’s petition by the district court was in error, the appropriate resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the district court. It is for the district court to review the agency action in the first instance, not this Court.
[¶28] That being said, my more fundamental disagreement with the majority opinion is that I believe the order of the district court dismissing Veile’s petition for review should be affirmed. The district court dismissed Veile’s petition for review on the grounds that the prior proceeding before the Board of Embalmers was not a contested case subject to review pursuant to the WAPA. The pertinent part of the district court order specifically reads:
*800That the order from which [Veile’s] appeal is taken is not an order which is subject to review for the following reasons:
a. W.S. § 33-16-311 allows any citizen to file a petition for revocation or suspension of a license issued by the Wyoming Board of Embalming; however, there is no authorization for the citizen to prosecute the claim.
b. Upon receiving a petition for revocation or suspension of a license issued by the Wyoming Board of Embalming from a citizen, it is the duty of the Wyoming Board of Embalming to determine if there is a sufficient basis to prosecute.
c. W.S. § 16 — 3—112(c) allows the Wyoming Board of Embalming to utilize the attorney general’s office to investigate, prepare, present and prosecute a contested case. The Wyoming statutes do not allow the Wyoming Board of Embalming to utilize the complaining citizen for these purposes.
d. The proceedings which took place before the Wyoming Board of Embalming do not represent a contested case hearing, Instead, such proceedings can best be characterized as an investigation after which the Wyoming Board of Embalming determined that there was not a sufficient basis to prosecute Petitioner’s claims.
e. The decision of the Wyoming Board of Embalming in this matter is not a decision which is subject to court review.
According to the order, the district court reasoned that the prior proceedings before the Board could not have been a contested case pursuant to the WAPA because a private citizen is not statutorily authorized under the WAPA to prosecute a contested case. Essentially, the district court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition.
[¶ 29] The district court is correct in this contention, as even the appellant concedes.8 The fact that the Board styled the hearing as a contested case and all the participants conducted the proceeding as a contested case cannot transform the proceeding into a contested ease under the WAPA. Bryant suggests that this Court accept that the proceedings were a contested case in the name of judicial economy. While I am mindful of the burden these proceedings have already inflicted upon all participants, such concern cannot create jurisdiction where none otherwise exists. The district court’s ruling that there was no WAPA contested ease for it to review is correct and should be affirmed.
[¶ 30] The real legal problem presented by this appeal is that the parties below invoked two different, and mutually exclusive, procedures. The parties began the process under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-16-311,9 which allows a private citizen to bring a complaint. The proceedings contemplated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-16-311 and 312 seem relatively straight forward. Once a petition is presented to the Board, the Board must hold a hearing and make an expeditious decision within thirty days. The losing party can then “appeal” to the district court, and the district court conducts a full trial de novo.10 If the Board revokes or suspends someone’s *801license, then the licensee must post a bond if he wants to continue business during the pendency of the trial. If the parties had followed this procedure, Veile arguably would have been entitled to a trial de novo once the Board determined his complaints were not well founded. Veile did file an “Appeal” pursuant to § 33-16-312 requesting a trial de novo, but his “Appeal” was dismissed. Veile has not appealed that dismissal to this Court so the propriety thereof is not before us. See footnote 6] majority opinion.
[¶ 31] Instead of following the dictates of §§ 33-16-311 and 312, however, after Veile brought a petition pursuant to § 33-16-311, the Board purported to turn the proceedings into a contested case pursuant to the WAPA, all the while maintaining Veile as the complaining party. As already discussed, the district court is correct that the WAPA does not allow for a private citizen to prosecute a complaint under the WAPA. Thus, despite the actions of the Board, and the acceptance of those actions by the parties, there was no official contested case pursuant to the WAPA. The discussion of this Court should end with the affirmance of the district court order dismissing the attempt to petition the district court to review a contested case pursuant to the WAPA.
[¶ 32] The question that remained unresolved in this proceeding is which procedure should be applied: the statutory procedure under §§ 33-16-311, 312, or a contested case hearing under the WAPA? The Board utilized a hybrid procedure that, in essence, the district court correctly rejected. According to Veile’s brief, the argument presented to the district court with regards to dismissing Veile’s “Appeal,” was that § 33-16-312 has been repealed by implication by the passage of the WAPA. It seems that the determination of which procedure applies raises an interesting question of statutory interpretation.11 The Board certainly hasn’t helped resolve this question. While Chapter 11 of the Board rules sets up a contested case type proceeding for hearings with review pursuant to the WAPA, Chapter 10 of the Board rules essentially simply restates the language of §§ 33-16-311 and 312. Thus even the Board, in its own rules, does not specify the proper procedure but rather allows for both procedures, adding to the confusion.12 The specific question of which procedure applies, however, is not properly before this Court so it remains simply an interesting legal question, to be answered another day.
[1133] Given the exact nature of the appeal taken, the order of the district court should be affirmed. In either case, an analysis by this Court of the propriety of any action taken by the Board is inappropriate. I therefore respectfully dissent.
.In his brief, Veile states "[t]he bases for the dismissal were that Mr. Veile had no authority to investigate or prosecute the licensing matter, as asserted by Mr. Veile....” Veile uses the reasoning of the district court to support his third issue regarding whether he should have been required by the Board to prosecute and pay for the proceedings before the Board: "The Board, if it had decided to defend its action, might have argued that Mr. Veile accepted the responsibility to prosecute the disciplinary case. However, such action is void ab initio, because of the lack of statutory authority to do so." In other words, Veile accepts that he had no statutory authority to prosecute a contested case under the WAPA and any attempt on his part to prosecute a contested case under the WAPA would be a nullity— exactly what the district court held.
. Quoted at ¶ 13 of the majority opinion.
. § 33-16-312. Petition for revocation or suspension of license; appeal to district court.
Both parties shall have the right of appeal to the district court of the county in which the licensee resides at any time within thirty (30) days after entry of the order of the board. The service of a notice in writing, of the intention of taking such an appeal, within ten (10) days after the entry of the order shall be sufficient notice to the adverse party of such appeal. A transcript of all pleadings upon which the cause was submitted to the board, duly certified, shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court and such filing shall complete the appeal. The trial of the district court upon such appeal shall be de novo. In the event the licensee appeals, the *801decision of the board shall not be stayed by the proceedings on appeal and such appeal shall not operate to restore the right of the licensee to practice pending such appeal, unless bond, with sufficient surety, to be approved by said clerk of the district court, shall be posted with said clerk of the district court, in such sums as the judge or court commissioner may require, conditioned that such appeal shall be prosecuted without unnecessary delay and in case the decision appealed from be confirmed the licensee shall pay all costs.
. I note, for instance, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16 — 3— 113 of the WAPA states that the contested case procedures of the WAPA apply to all licensing procedures that, by law, are subject to a hearing. In his brief, Veile presents a summary argument that the Board could proceed only pursuant to a contested case under the WAPA. This argument, however, was presented in support of Veile's contention that the proceeding before the Board was a contested case under the WAPA — because it had to be a contested case under the WAPA. Obviously this argument, when placed in the context within it was offered, begs the question.
. The statutes do, of course, govern over agency rules. " 'An agency is wholly without power to modify, dilute or change in any way the statutory provisions from which it derives its authority.’ Platte Development Co. v. State, Environmental Quality Council, 966 P.2d 972, 975 (Wyo.1998). Thus, administrative agencies are bound to comply with their enabling statutes. Sears v. Romer, 928 P.2d 745, 751 (Colo.App.1996). An administrative rule or regulation which is not expressly or impliedly authorized by statute is without force or effect if it adds to, changes, modifies, or conflicts with an existing statute. Id. Conversely, a rule or regulation which is expressly or impliedly authorized by the enabling statute will be given force and effect.” Billings v. Wyo. Bd. of Outfitters, 2001 WY 81, ¶ 24, 30 P.3d 557, ¶ 24 (Wyo.2001).