1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate of this Court and is also a member of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association, hereinafter called the "Association". A resolution moved by some of the members condemning the conduct of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court in the constitution of a Full Bench which passed an interim order in a case by majority and a request to the Chief Justice to avoid repetition of such incidents was passed by the General Body of the Association on 8.10.2003. The full text of the resolution produced as Ext. P2 in the W.P. is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

"We the members of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association express our grave concern over the manner in which a case which ordinarily ought to have been heard by a single judge having jurisdiction over the subject, was listed before the Division Bench presided by the Hon'ble Chief justice, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner without an express order stating reason for the same, and when the brother judge disagreed on the order to be passed in the case, instead of delivering separate orders and referring the matter to another judge for opinion, on the same day passed an order in the chamber referring the matter to a Full Bench apparently on questions of fact, constituted a Full Bench of three judges presided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, placed the matter before the Full Bench in the afternoon of the same day before the reference order was made known to the parties to the litigation and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner;

And further resolve to request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to ensure that such incidents do not take place in future in the better interest of judiciary and credibility of the institution".

The resolution when moved was stated to be objected to only by eight members including the petitioner, and the petitioner appears to have maintained the view that the resolution amounts to criminal contempt of court. Therefore after passing of the resolution, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 application dated 14.10.2003 before the Advocate General under S.15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for permission for initiating contempt of court proceedings against one of members who moved the resolution and the President of the Association. Consequent upon filing of the application by the petitioner before the Advocate General, the Executive Committee of the Association in their meeting held on 17.10.2003 decided to suspend the petitioner from the primary membership of the Association pending enquiry with effect from 18.10.2003 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Association vide Ext. P6. The reason for the petitioner's suspension is given in the show cause notice produced as Ext. P7 which is as follows:

On 18. 10.2003 the General body of the Association passed a resolution in which you also spoke and participated in the voting. Now it has come to the notice of the Executive Committee that you have filed a sanction petition before the Advocate General to initiate criminal proceedings against Adv. Babu Varghese our President and Adv. M.K. Damodaran who moved the resolution stating that the resolution would amount to contempt of court. Therefore you have acted against the decision and the very best interest of the Association. Hence you are called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you for acting against the Association. If you have any reply to offer it may be done within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. If you fail to reply to the show cause notice, it will be presumed that you have no reply to offer.

The copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 17.10.2003 is produced as Ext. P8. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P6 to P8 proceedings of the Executive Committee of the Association suspending him from the primary membership of the Association and initiating disciplina