ORDER P.V. DIXIT, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India for withdrawal of an appeal pending in the Court of the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, arising out of a taxation matter under the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947. 2. This petition first came up for hearing before a Single Judge, who made an order on 28 August 1958 withdrawing the appeal from this Court for decision of the question. Whether section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947, (Act VI of 47) is repugnant to the Constitution on the ground that it puts unreasonable restrictions on the applicant's right to carry on his trade throughout the territory of India". The matter has now come up before us for final disposal. 3. In our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge withdrawing the appeal from this Court for disposal was not legal. Under the rules framed by this Court a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of India could be heard and decided only by a Bench of two Judges as required by Rule 4 of the rules contained in Chapter I, Part I, High Court Rules. The Rules nowhere give to a Single Judge jurisdiction to hear and dispose of an application under Article 228. The Order of the learned Single Judge withdrawing the appeal must therefore be regarded as a nullity. 4. Turning now to the question whether the application under Article 228 should be granted, we do not see any reason for the withdrawal of the appeal from this Court. Under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, before the High Court can withdraw a case it has to be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case. The word 'involves' and the expression 'the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case' which occur in Article 228 are very significiant. They show that the satisfaction of the High Court must be with regard to the point that the case cannot be decided without a decision on the constitutional question. The word 'involves' and the expression 'the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case' which occur in Article 228 are very significiant. They show that the satisfaction of the High Court must be with regard to the point that the case cannot be decided without a decision on the constitutional question. If, therefore, in a case along with the question of law about the interpretation of the Constitution there are other questions which are sufficient in themselves to end the case, then the Constitutional question is not one the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case. Under Article 228 a case cannot be withdrawn merely on the ground that a question of law about the interpretation of the Constitution has been raised and that the question is important or substantial. Then again, the question whether the constitutional point is necessary for the disposal of the case can be determined only when findings on the other questions arising in the case are given. Until that is done, it is impossible to by whether the determination of the constitutional question is necessary for the disposal of the case. Here, it is not clear, either from the order pissed by the Regional Transport Authority or from the grounds of appeal stated in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, how the final disposal of the case rests only on the ground of the repugnancy of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947, to the Constitution. In these circumstances, it would not be proper for us to withdraw the appeal for disposal under Article 228 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petition is therefore rejected. The appeal shall be disposed of without any delay by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur. No order for costs. Petition dismissed