JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. - By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure insofar as it requires a prior sanction of the Government before filing a complaint about offences mentioned therein. It is said that it gives an arbitrary powers to the State Government in the matter of sanction and thus it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. A similar writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 6-4-82 as mentioned in para 12 of the petition on the ground that the proper way to raise constitutionality of the section was provided in Section 395 Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. This view is binding on a Co-ordinate Bench. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that this view requires reconsideration and, if necessary it should be referred to a larger Bench. We have accordingly heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. However, we find no force in the submission raised by him. 4. Presently the petition is only academic so far as the Petitioner is concerned. His complaint has not been dismissed for want of sanction u/s 196 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is actually no case pending at his instance in any Court. He is only intending to do so. Academic questions are not to be disposed of by Courts. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that when the fundamental rights of the Petitioner are infringed, then the Court cannot compel the Petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy in another forum. It is also useless to avail that alternative remedy as the Act, which provides it, is itself discriminatory vide The Bengal Immunity Company Limited Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1955 SC 661 . 6. There has, however, been no infringement of the fundamental right of the Petitioner till now. He is only apprehending about it. Further the Code of Criminal Procedure under which Section 395 Code of Criminal Procedure occurs is not alleged to be void. So this case does not apply. 7. Assuming, however, that this Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure which makes prior sanction of State Government obligatory before a Court can take cognizance of offences mentioned therein is of general applicability and so to avoid unnecessary proceedings, the matter may be disposed of by this Court on merits as well. So this case does not apply. 7. Assuming, however, that this Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure which makes prior sanction of State Government obligatory before a Court can take cognizance of offences mentioned therein is of general applicability and so to avoid unnecessary proceedings, the matter may be disposed of by this Court on merits as well. 8. The constitutionality of Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure is being challenged on the ground that Government has been given an arbitrary powers to grant sanction and there is likelihood of injustice taking place for want of any guidelines as to when a sanction is to be given. The learned Counsel for Petitioner relied for this upon The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 . That case is, however, distinguishable. There the offences for which the special Court was to be created had not been mentioned and the Government had been left with the sole discretion to select any and hence it was held to be discriminatory. It is significant that the same Bench which disposed of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (Supra) had also disposed of the case in Kathi Raning Rawat Vs. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 . 9. There also a similar provision as in Anwar Ali's case (supra) existed and the State Government was empowered to establish for such areas and for such offences as it thought fit, but it was still held to be valid because it was pointed out later through an affidavit that these provisions were regarded necessary for maintenance of public peace in that area after integration of various states of Kathiawar. 10. In the present case, such a wide discretion to select offences does not exist. Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure specifies offences for which sanction is needed. 11. It is significant that the Petitioner does not challenged the categorisation of the offences for which sanction is needed. Once the classification from that point of view does not remain discriminatory the other ground on which discrimination is alleged, namely, that it gives unguided power to State to grant or to refuse to grant sanction fails for the power given to the Government is to be exercised for the very object for which special provision was made for sanction for the offences mentioned in that section. It could thus not be said to be without guidelines. 12. It may be mentioned that a similar provision exists for grant of prior sanction for certain other offences mentioned in Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure but that section was held to be constitutional vide Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 . In the latest case In Re: The Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478 the Bench of seven Judges after reviewing State of West Bengal's case (supra) held that constitutionality of an Act should not be determined merely because the law confers discritionary power on the administrative authority. Abuse of power given by law does occur; but the validity of the law cannot be contested because of such an apprehension. Discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power (vide page 425 para 72 SI. No. 10). So the powers given to the State Government to grant or not to grant sanction will be guided by the object for which the offences had been categorised for need of a sanction. If in any particular case, any act shows discrimination, that act and not the provision itself can be struck down. 13. A Division Bench of the Gujrat High Court has also taken a similar view about the constitutionality of Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure vide Shalibhadra Shah and Others Vs. Swami Krishna Bharati and Another, (1981) CriLJ 113 . 14. The petition has thus no force. It is not admitted and is summarily rejected. 15. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court as prayed for is refused as no substantial question of law which requires to be determined by the Supreme Court is involved in this petition.