SHRI MALILAL Vs. ADVOCATE GENERAL RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Shrimalilal Kasliwal and two others under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) IT appears that Shrinarain Lal, opposite party, and others have applied to the Advocate General, under sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to file a suit in the civil court in relation to a certain temple which is claimed to be a trust created for public purposes of charitable or religious nature. That application is being considered by the Advocate General and the present applicants, who happened to be the trustees, are also before him. IT is alleged that the Advocate General is biased against the applicants because of certain remarks alleged to have been made by him while he was hearing the parties. The applicants, therefore, have made this application for a writ, direction or order. Their case is that the Advocate General is a quasi-judicial authority and a writ of certiorary should issue. The have also made the State of Rajasthan a parly because of the difficulty that under sec. 92 the Advocate General is the only person to deal with applications for granting permission to sue, and unless the State Government decides to appoint another officer under sec. 93, there is no person who can grant the permission necessary under sec. 92.