Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. W.A.Nos.544 and 545 of 2018 are filed, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by respondents 8 and 4 in W.P.No.8433 of 2018 respectively aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.8433 of 2018 dated 15.03.2018.

2. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.544 of 2018, and the 4th respondent in W.A.No.545 of 2018, filed W.P.No.8433 of 2018 seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading upto and inclusive of the proceedings of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (the HCA for short), represented by its Chief Executive Officer Sri Panduranga Murthy, dated 09.03.2018 and Case Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 8 of 2018 and Case No.5 of 2017, to the extent the order the Learned Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer, Hyderabad Cricket Association (3rd respondent in W.A. No.544 of 2018 and the 2nd respondent in W.A.No.545 of 2018) dated 08.03.2018 concerned the Petitioner, and to quash the same holding it to be without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary; and to consequently enable the petitioner to continue as the President of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. By way of interim relief, the respondent-writ petitioner sought suspension of the operation of the proceedings of the Hyderabad Cricket Association dated 09.03.2018, and the order of the Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer of the Hyderabad Cricket Association dated 08.03.2018, in Case No.3, 4, 6, 7, 8 of 2018 and Case No.5 of 2017, to the extent of the petitioner, and to enable the petitioner to continue as the President of the HCA pending disposal of the writ petition. It is convenient to refer to the parties in this appeal as they were arrayed in the W.P. No. 8433 of 2018.

3. Elections to the HCA were held on 17.01.2017, and the result of the elections were declared on 31.03.2017. The respondent-writ petitioner, who was elected as the President, assumed office on the same day i.e., 31.03.2017. Thereafter, on 28.07.2017, the petitioner himself addressed a letter to the Learned Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer stating that he had some interest, and sought clarification in his holding office as the President of HCA. The appellant in W.A.No.545 of 2018 submitted his complaint before the Learned Ombudsman on 20.11.2017 requesting that the respondent writ petitioner should be declared to have ceased to hold office as the President of the HCA as there was a conflict of interest. The appellant in W.A.No.545 of 2018 thereafter submitted two complaints to the Learned Ombudsman. All these complaints were that the respondent-writ petitioner was not entitled to continue to hold office of the President of the HCA because of conflict of interest, and as he was appointed as an Advisor to the Telangana State Government and was granted Cabinet status. The Learned Ombudsman passed an order on 08.03.2018 holding that, on both the grounds, the appellant was disqualified from holding office of the President of the HCA. This order was communicated to the respondent-writ petitioner by the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer of the HCA dated 08.03.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Writ Petition was filed on 13.03.2018, and the interim order under appeal was passed on 15.03.2018. Questioning the said interim order, some of the respondents in the Writ Petition have preferred this appeal.

4. As the order of the Learned Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer of the HCA, holding that the respondent writ petitioner could not continue as the President of the HCA as there was a conflict of interest and on the ground that he held an office which had cabinet status, was under challenge in the writ petition, it is necessary to refer, albeit in brief, to the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee in this regard, and the amended bye-laws and Rules of the HCA which relate thereto.

5. By its order dated 22.01.2015, (in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251), the Supreme Court appointed a Committee, among others, to examine a