The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Bar Association had statutory duties under the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act and Rules, and the expulsion of the petitioners violated these duties, impacting their right to practice law.

Alapuzha Bar Association by a resolution adopted in an extraordinary general body meeting held on 10-1-1992 resolved to remove 12 members from the Bar Association. The resolution Ext. R1(b) de­scribes them as retired hands. That resolution is under challenge in this original petition filed by the expelled members who seek a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to strike down that resolution.

2. Before joining the Bar at Alapuzha, petitioners had been in service either under the Government of Kerala, the Government of India or public undertakings. They were duly enrolled as members of the first respon­dent Bar Association. The Alapuzha Bar Association was incorporated under. Sec. 28 of the Travancore Companies Act. Article 4(1) of the Memorandum of Association stipu­lates that membership is open to all advocates and pleaders entitled to practice in all or in any of the Civil Courts of Travancore and permanently residing within the jurisdiction of Munsiff's Court, Alapuzha. Petitioners are eligible to become members of the associa­tion.

3. Petitioners are also members of Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund. Such membership can be obtained only through a Bar Associa­tion. Petitioners have become members of the fund through first respondent association. They continue to be on the roll of advocates under the Bar Councils Act. They were ex­pelled from the membership in violation of the relevant constitutional guarantees and principles of natural justice solely on the ground that they are retired personnel. First respondent has not informed them of the expulsion whereas they knew about removal of membership from newspaper reports. The resolution of expulsion from membership passed against petitioners is null and void. The extraordinary general body meeting at which the resolution was adopted has no legal sanctity. It also violates the constitutional guarantee available to petitioners to practice a profession of their choice. Petitioners seek a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash that resolution.

4. On behalf of first respondent a counter-­affidavit was filed by the President raising the following contentions. The association is neither a statutory authority nor other auth­ority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The association does not discharge any public duty vis-a-vis the members of the association or the general public. It is a purely private body incorpo­rated under the Travancore Companies Act and an existing company within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Resolutions passed by the general body of the Executive Committee of the association are not orders or proceedings of either a quasi-­judicial authority or an administrative auth­ority. Such resolutions are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Neither the membership in the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund nor the right of petitioners to practice law as an advocate on the roll of the Bar Council is in any way affected by the action taken against them. The expulsion from the membership of the asso­ciation does not violate any of the consti­tutional guarantees available to petitioners nor does it amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

6. The Executive Committee of the Bar Association had met on 13-12-1991. One of the members of the Executive Committee has raised an issue regarding certain complaints received from some members of the Bar. The said complaints related to certain unprofes­sional conduct on the part of those lawyers who have been practicing after retirement from Government service or other services. The decision to expel petitioners was taken by the general body after being convinced of the fact that continuing of the membership of the petitioners as members of the association would not be in conformity with the spirit and tradition of the Bar Association which has been in existence for more than 50 years. None