The court emphasized that even a quasi-judicial tribunal is not bound to give an oral hearing to a person before passing an adverse order, as long as it affords sufficient opportunity for stating the case. The court also clarified that the right to hold office in the Yogam was governed by the rules of the Yogam, not the Companies Act.

1. The petitioner before us was, & claims that he still is, the president of the Pathanamthitta Union of the Aruvipuram Sri Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (better known by its abbreviated title of the S.N.D.P. Yogam), a body incorporated under Travancore Regulation I of 1063 (Indian Companies Act VI of 1882). A copy of the articles of association, in other words of the rules of the Yogam, has been produced and has been marked as Ext. P-I.

They contemplate the establishment of a large number of branches: unions are group organisations of the branches; and both the branches and the unions are, of course, subordinate to the Yogam and subject to its control). On 20-7 -1955, the General Secretary of the Yogam, acting on behalf of its Council, sent the petitioner the notice, (Ex. P3-) asking him to show cause against disciplinary action for having worked against the interests of the Yogam. The charge was based on two documents appended to the notice, the first Ex. P-4 dated 8-6-1955 being a resolution of the Mezhuveli Branch of the Thiruvellah Union alleging that the petitioner was carrying on "anti S. N. D. P. Yogam" propaganda and had, according to a newspaper report, presided over a meeting of dissidents at Mezhuveli on 28-5-1955 and spoken against the Yogam. The second, Ext. P-5 dated 20-7-1955, was a report by the Secretary of the Thiruvellah Union affirming these allegations. The petitioner replied to the notice with Ex. P-6, a bombastic tirade against the office bearers of the Yogam and a eulogy of himself as the upholder of the true cause. The council was not satisfied with this so-called explanation - If we were called upon to pronounce upon it we would say that, as a denial of the charge levelled in Exts. P-3 to P-5, it was most equivocal - and by its resolution dated 18-8-1955 duly communicated to the petitioner by the General Secretary (Ext. P-7 is the communication) it called upon him to answer certain specific questions regarding his alleged participation in the meeting at Mezhuveli on 28-5-1955. This communication the petitioner chose to ignore, and the whole matter having been placed before the Board of Directors of the Yogam, the Board considering that the petitioner had not satisfactorily answered the charge against him resolved to punish him by debarring him from holding any office in the Yogam or in its subordinate organisations for a period of three years. This resolution was communicated to the petitioner by means of Ext. P-8, and it is against it that the petitioner complains on the score that it was beyond the competence of the Board and opposed to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Companies Act. His prayer is that, acting under Art.226 of the Constitution, we should "quash the decision of the S. N. D P. Board disqualifying the petitioner from holding any official post in the S.N. D. P. Yogam for three years by the issue of a writ of certiorari and prohibition or such other writ or order appropriate under the circumstances".

2. The first respondent to the petition is the Yogam represented by its General Secretary. The second respondent is the Pathanamthitta Union represented by its Secretary and the third respondent is a person, who, according to the petitioner, claims to have been elected as the acting president of the Union in place of the petitioner.

3. We might observe at the very outset that we consider this to be a case where the petitioner, having an adequate remedy under the ordinary law, should have had resort to the ordinary courts instead of invoking our special jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. His case, as we understand it, is that the order of disqualification passed against him by the Board is null and void and that he still continues to be the president of the second respondent Union. A suit for declaration to that effect, or, in the event of any threat to his office by, the respondents or by anybody else, for an injunction to uphold it, would