JUDGMENT : Shah, J. 1. The appellants were charged in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Deogarh for offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) on the allegation that they had contravened the provisions of the Bihar Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1965. Before any evidence was led, the appellants moved the High Court of Patna under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India for a writ against the State of Bihar quashing the order dated 9th December, 1966 issued by the Under Secretary, Supply and Commerce Department, Ex. A and for an order directing the State and the Assistant District Supply Officer, Deogarh to forbear from, enforcing the terms and conditions of the Bihar Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order and quashing the complaint filed against them. 2. The High Court rejected the petition in limine observing that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution was raised by the petition and on the facts alleged no case for withdrawing the case for trial from the court of the Magistrate in exercise of the power under Article 228 was made out. The High Court pointed out that the prosecution against the appellants may fail on facts and the appellants may be acquitted. In the circumstances it was unnecessary in the circumstances to withdraw the case to the High Court. The High Court also observed that it was open to the appellants to inform the learned Magistrate before whom the case was pending that the provisions under which they were being prosecuted were ultra vires and if the Magistrate were satisfied, a reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be made. 3. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred with special leave. Counsel for the appellants has rightly not relied on Article 228 of the Constitution. He has urged, however, that this Court may deal with the question as to the vires of the Bihar Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order. But the High Court has declined to consider that question on the ground that, if so advised, it is open to the appellants to raise that question under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we do not think that the High Court was wrong in so ordering. But the High Court has declined to consider that question on the ground that, if so advised, it is open to the appellants to raise that question under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we do not think that the High Court was wrong in so ordering. Section 432(1) provides :- "Where any court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the decision of the High Court." The legislature has provided a special procedure for bringing a matter before the High Court when a party to a criminal prosecution pleads that the case involves a question as to the validity of an Act, Ordiance or Regulation and determination of that question is necessary for the disposal of the case. 4. The appellants did not apply to the trial Magistrate, and approached the High Court. The High Court declined to entertain the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, because in their view the matter could be brought before them according to the procedure prescribed by Section 432. We do not think that the order of the High Court was in any manner erroneous. 5. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.