1. In this writ petition, under Art.226 of the Constitution. Mr. S. Easwara Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioners, attacks the limited manner in which the learned Advocate General has given sanction to institute the suit to the petitioners under S.92, CPC..

2. In fairness to the learned counsel, it must be stated that there is no attack whatsoever either against the manner In which the proceedings were conducted by the learned Advocate General, nor even against the actual decision taken by the Advocate-General in the circumstances of this case.

3. But the main attack, so far as we could gather, is that though the plaintiffs asked for reliefs on various grounds in the draft plaint filed by them and marked as Ext. P in these proceedings, the ultimate sanction given by the Advocate-General, confining the reliefs only to clauses (A) and (I) practically makes the filing of the suit illusory as not serving any purpose at all.

4. According to Mr. S. Easwara Iyer, in considering the question of granting a sanction under S.92, C.P.C. the learned Advocate-General, who functions under the provisions of S.92, CPC., should be considered to be discharging judicial function or at any