SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- On February 7, 1977, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:

"By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of the U. P. ordinance No. 14 of 1976, which has since been replaced by an Act, on the ground that it contravenes Art. 29 and other provisions of the Constitution.

Art. 228-A (3) of the Constitution provides that the minimum number of Judges who shall sit for the purpose of determining any question as to the constitutional validity of any State law has to be five. Even if we are not inclined to accept the argument of the petitioners, it will not be possible for us to reject the writ petition, as it would amount to determination of a question on constitutional validity of the Ordinance. The object of placing a writ petition for admission obviously cannot be to compel the Division Bench to admit the writ petition whether it agrees with the arguments advanced by the petitioner or not. In the circumstances, in cases where the constitutional validity of some State law is being questioned, it will serve no useful purpose to list that petition before Division Bench. Accordingly