1. The question is whether the order Ext: P3 passed by the Advocate-General of Kerala, the first respondent, refusing "consent in writing" as envisaged by S.92(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the petitioner for instituting a suit along with another for the reliefs that would fall under that sub section is amenable to be quashed, as prayed for, by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The order Ext. P3 is a brief one and reads thus:

"On a consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case I do not think that there is a case for grant of sanction under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence I reject the petition."

2. The circumstances which led to the application before the Advocate-General are stated in the order of reference of Isaac J., the relevant part of which we shall extract:

"The petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 are members of the Jewish Synagogue, Parur. It is an ancient charitable and religious institution which owns very large extent of properties, movable and immovable, costing not less than Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs. The properties were managed by some old trustees. A suit was instituted by some of the beneficiaries of the Synagogue under S: 92 C.P.C. in th