Sanction of Advocate General if judicial.

The petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the learned Advocate-General of Madras, dated 6th January, 1961, in Sanction Application No. 11 of 1960 preferred before him for the necessary consent for the institution of a suit under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The petitioners are residents in the village of Sirunaickenpatti, Dindigul Taluk, Mathurai District and they are Roman Catholic Christians by religion. The bulk of the population of the village of Sirunaickenpatti consists of Roman Catholic Christians . There is a church in the village, St. Antony’s Church and there is also another church, the Church of St. Thomas situated on the top of a hillock near the village. The Catholic Christians of the village appear to have raised funds by levying contributions and subscriptions from all the Catholics and purchased statues, pictures, ornaments and carriage for carrying corpses to the burial ground and other articles necessary and useful for the Christian population residing in the locality. Respondents 2 to 4 in this petition are stated to be functioning as trustees managing the communal properties. The articles referred to above were entrusted to them for safe custody; they were bound to celebrate the festivals connected with the churches, and afford use of the articles to the members of the Christian public as and when required. These respondents also made collections from their co-religionists in the village and incurred the necessary expenses for the upkeep and maintenance of the properties and for the conduct of the religious festivals. The second respondent is alleged to be “nattamai” or the communal head, and the third respondent is alleged to be the “maniam” possibly assisting the nattamai. The fourth respondent is the accountant employed by the second and the third respondents to keep the accounts of the trust. The petitioners allege that the 4th respondent has been lending out the surplus amounts of the trust available with him after meeting all charges and expenses to several Christian residents of the village, taking bonds and documents in his own name for and on behalf of the Community. This fund is described and known as St. Sebastiar Koil common fund. It is now apparent that there is a faction in the village amongst the members of the Roman Catholic Christian community. The petitioners charge respondents 2 to 4 with having committed gross breach of trust in regard to the moneys belonging to the trust in having retained the surplus amounts in their own hands without investment for the last two years and in having refused to render true and proper accounts to the other members of the community. It is also alleged that respondents 2 to 4 failed in their duty to call for a meeting of the community and to consult them in matters relating to the common affairs of the community. The ill-feeling between the petitioner’s group and the respondents’ group gradually developed and this led to respondents 2 to 4 denying the petitioners their undoubted privileges of participating in the public functions in the Church and refusing them the use of the funeral car to take corpses to the burial ground. The petitioners filed a suit in a representative capacity under Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, against respondents 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 266 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Dindigul, for a declaration that the funeral car under the management of respondents 2 to 4 belongs to the Roman Catholic community of Sirunaickenpatti and that all the members of the community are entitled to make use of it and that respondents 2 to 4 should make the car available for the use of the community as such. This suit was decreed by consent of parties on 1st April, 1960.

Respondents 2 to 4 are firmly entrenched in their position as trustees in respect of the management of the Church and the communal properties. Th