A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, J.

1. This interlocutory application is being taken up for hearing pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLA(C) Nos. 16006 & 16007 of 2018, out of turn. Facts stated are:--In the year 2004, the petitioner in the capacity of Managing Director of M/s. Visakha Industries Limited had entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent-Hyderabad Cricket Association, (for short, 'the HCA') to extend financial aid for construction of a stadium (now Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad), and advanced some of Rs. 4.32 crores. Among other things, the agreement provided for extension of certain benefits, such as naming the stadium as Visakha International Cricket Stadium, allotment of stands and cubicles in the stadium to the Company and the like. But, disputes arose between the parties to the contract i.e., M/s. Visakha Industries Limited and the HCA and the agreement had to be ultimately terminated vide letter dated 16.7.2011, which led to initiation of arbitration proceedings and an award was also passed on 15.3.2016 for Rs. 25.92 crores as damages in favour of M/s. Visakha Industries Limited and against the HCA. Pending arbitration proceedings, M/s. Visakha Industries Limited filed OP under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and had obtained order of injunction and also order of attachment which are subsisting as on date. Against the award of the learned Arbitrators, the HCA filed OP No. 1255 of 2016 and the same is pending adjudication. It is also borne out from the record that at one point of time, the Managing Committee (Apex Council) of the HCA had offered to settle the matter, out of Court, in its entirety, by offering a sum of Rs. 17.5 crores, but the same could not fructify. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was appointed as an Advisor to the Government of Telangana vide G.O. Ms. No. 2601, dated 30.11.2016 conferring upon him the status of a Cabinet Minister.

2. Elections to the 1st respondent-Hyderabad Cricket Association were held on 17.1.2017 and the result of the elections were declared on 31.3.2017. Among others, the petitioner was elected as President and assumed office on the same day. It is a matter of record that on his election as President of the HCA, the petitioner himself addressed a letter dated 28.7.2017 to the learned Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer-2nd respondent stating that he was the promoter Director of the M/s. Visakha Industries Limited, and had worked in various capacities including as the Managing Director of the Company till October, 2009 and currently continuing as Director, his spouse as Managing Director and son as full-time Director and held 41% of the shares in the Company. The petitioner gave details of the litigation pending in civil Court arising out of an arbitration award between M/s. Visakha Industries Limited and the HCA and requested to advise, guide and resolve any conflict of interest that may be assumed between himself having interest in M/s. Visakha Industries Limited and as President of the HCA. The petitioner also appears to have stated that as an abundant caution and to avoid adverse comments, he would recuse from the discussion and decision, if any, on issues between M/s. Visakha Industries Limited and the HCA.

3. It is also a matter of record that respondents 3 to 8 in the writ petition have filed cases being Case Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2018 before the 2nd respondent seeking a declaration to the effect that there exists a clear conflict of interest vis-a-vis the petitioner as President and the HCA and, therefore, he is not entitled to hold or continue in the post of President of the HCA, as defined under the Rules and Regulations framed by the Supreme Court Committee on Reforms in Cricket (for short, 'the Rules') and adopted by the HCA read with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its judgment in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251. Petitioner's appointment is also