JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) Declare that the decision taken in special general body meeting convened on 8.9.2018 vide Ext.P5, by the 2nd respondent to remove the petitioner from the primary membership of the 1st respondent is illegal and void. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P5 and quash the decision taken therein, so far it has decided to remove the petitioner from the primary membership of the 1st respondent.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner, who claims to be the President of the 1st respondent Kasaragod District Cricket Association challenges the decision taken by the 2nd respondent in a special general body meeting held on 8.9.2018 to terminate the petitioner from primary membership. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision was taken by the 1st respondent without notice to the petitioner and without hearing him and the said action is, therefore, violative of the petitioner's valuable constitutional right of fairness and fair play and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sreesanth S. vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others, 2017 (4) KHC 337 , which according to him has not been upset though the said decision had been reversed by a Division Bench on other aspects of the matter. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 18.10.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 30568/16 wherein in identical circumstances this Court had found that the issue of expulsion from a District Cricket Association and a show cause notice for the same issued by the Kerala Cricket Association involves no public duty and that such a decision is not amenable to challenge before this Court. It was held in the said judgment as follows:- “Coming to the facts of the present case, as in the case dealt with by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 19455 of 2008, what is sought to be enforced by the petitioners is their right to continue as members of the Association. It was held in the said judgment as follows:- “Coming to the facts of the present case, as in the case dealt with by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 19455 of 2008, what is sought to be enforced by the petitioners is their right to continue as members of the Association. It is trite that the rights of the members of Associations in the nature of the Palakkad District Cricket Association stem from the bye-laws of the Association. In other words, the dispute in the instant case is also one for enforcement of the right of the petitioners under the bye-laws. In a disciplinary action initiated by a private body like the Association against its members, no public duty of any nature is involved. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notices issued by the Association. The decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioners have no application to the facts of the present case. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.” 5. Reliance is also placed on decision of the Apex Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2005 KHC 882, Supreme Court Bar Association and Others vs. B.D. Kaushik and Another, 2011 KHC 4885 and of this Court in Director Lisie Hospital, Kochi vs. Anson Fernandez and Others, 2015 (4) KLJ 211 . The unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 19455 of 2008 & 17867 of 2009 are also relied on. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced. The issue raised in this case is with regard to the termination of primary membership of the petitioner in the 1st respondent Association by the 2nd respondent. Though contentions are raised by the petitioner with regard to the inalienable right of the petitioner for notice and hearing before a decision is taken to terminate its membership, I am of the opinion that the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 30568 of 2016 clearly covers the issue. The 1st respondent, of course is a State Cricket Association. In matters where public duty is cast on the association, a writ petition to enforce those public duties may, of course, be maintainable. The 1st respondent, of course is a State Cricket Association. In matters where public duty is cast on the association, a writ petition to enforce those public duties may, of course, be maintainable. However, in the instant case, what is under challenge is a decision with regard to expulsion of a member. I am in complete agreement with the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 30568 of 2016 that there is no public duty involved in the subject matter which justifies the invocation of the discretionary remedy of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since I am of the opinion that the decision of the 1st respondent is not amenable to be challenged before this Court, the question whether the decision was vitiated for want of notice and hearing also is not liable to be considered. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The contentions of the parties are left open, to be agitated in appropriate proceeding.