Mehar Singh, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two petitions Nos. 249 and 261 of 1954 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The facts and Circumstances out of which the petitions have arisen are these.
(2.) IN petition No. 249 of 1954, Petitioners are three residents of village Dudian in Sang -rur District, and the Respondents are Mangal Gir as the mohatmim of Shiv Mandir Dudian and the Advocate -General. The Petitioners made an application under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure . to the Advocate -General to obtain his consent for institution of a suit against Mangal Gir Respondent for his removal from the position of mahatma of the Mandir on the grounds that he has not properly managed its property, has wasted its property, and has used the profits of the property for personal benefit, and that he is not a person of good character and so fit the hold that position. The Advocate -General gave notice of the application of the Petitioners to the mahatma of the Mandir. He then took evidence of the parties and heard them. Thereafter by a detailed order, dated 16 -10 -1954, he came to the conclusion that the Petitioners have not shown that there exists any religious or charitable trust, that there has been any breach of trust by the mahatma, and that the mahatma is not a man of good character. Upon these conclusions, he declined to give his consent for the institution of the suit by the Petitioners. In their petition the Petitioners aver that the Advocate -General has reached wrong conclusion in the case and that there was sufficient material before him to reach the conclusion that prima facie they were entitled to obtain his consent for the institution of the suit and so this Court, should issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 quashing the order of the Advocate -General and give consent for the institution of the suit to them. Similar prayer is made under' Article 227. In Petition No. 261 of 1954 again the Petitioners are three of village Chhaila, and the Respondents are the Advocate -General and Arjan Ban as mahatma of Dera Baba Nand Ban. The Petitioners made an application under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure to the Advocate -General to obtain his consent to file a suit against Arjan Ban Respondent for his removal from the position of the mahatma of the Dera and for appointment of a new mahatma in his place and for the proper taking of the accounts off" the Dera. In this case also the Advocate -General gave notice of the application of the Petitioners to Arjan Ban Respondent. He then took evidence of the parties and heard them on the case. In his detailed order, dated 6 -11 -1954, he has reached the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for him to find that the mahatma has been misappropriating the property of the Dera or giving it away to his brother that proper accounts are being kept by the mahatma, and that the Petitioners are actuated by personal considerations and motives to make the application and thus the application is not made in good faith. Upon these considerations he declined to give consent "for" the institution of the suit. In this case top the Petitioners aver that the conclusions of the Advocate -General are not justified by the material placed before him and there was enough material before him to come to the conclusion that prima facie the case was fit for him. to "give, consent for the institution of the suit The prayer under both the Articles, that is 226 and 227 is that the order of the Advocate Generable quashed and either he be direct -ad to reconsider the case and pass a proper order or this Court may pass an order giving Sanction to the Petitioners to institute the suit.
(3.) THESE two cases have been heard together because a common question of law is involved in them in that in that in either case it is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the function of the Advocate -General under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure is a judicial function and so this Court Interfere with his proceedings and orders, under, the; said Articles, and on the contrary the position taken on behalf of the Respondents, in each case is that the order of the Advocate -General is an executive or administrative order and this Court cannot interfere with the same under either or both of those Articles;