JUDGMENT:- V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. These Appeals would arise against the interim order of a learned single Judge of this Court, passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011, in W.P.No.2559 of 2011, respectively. 2. The Writ Petition was one for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to its letter, dated 23.12.2010, quash the same and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the Selection Trials and International Bridge Tournaments as per the rights granted to the petitioner by Notification bearing No.S.O.542 (E), dated 11.04.2005, issued by the third respondent under Section 7-B(1) of the Citizenship Act,1955. 3. The case of the appellant before the writ court was that he is an Overseas Citizen of India in terms of Section 7-A of the Citizenship Act,1955, since February,2006. He, having had been born in Chennai and being an Indian, and having completed his degree course in Madras, has become a naturalized citizen of United States in 1996 and is also registered as Overseas Citizen of India with certain rights. He, being a member of the first respondent/Federation and is stated to be an internationally acclaimed Bridge player, has formed a team, which consists of Indian Citizens by spending his own amount for sponsoring the team to participate in the National Championships and Tournaments and that his team has represented in the international tournaments. Also, after acquiring Overseas Citizen of India status in February,2006, till 2010, he has been allowed by the first respondent to participate in the International and National Championships and Tournaments and also to participate in the National Selection Trials held in 2007,2008 and 2009 and his team has won various medals. He also would state that the first respondent has been taking steps to decide about the eligibility or players who could contest selection trials for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl. He had to decide on his participation in the Summer Nationals, a National Qualifying Event to be held in Aurangabad in March,2011, for selection trials, and when he was in India, he wrote to the first respondent to permit him to participate, for which the impugned letter has been received from the first respondent. 4. He had to decide on his participation in the Summer Nationals, a National Qualifying Event to be held in Aurangabad in March,2011, for selection trials, and when he was in India, he wrote to the first respondent to permit him to participate, for which the impugned letter has been received from the first respondent. 4. By the impugned letter, dated 23.12.2010, the first respondent informed the appellant that they would not be able to consider his request for the team to be selected for international events based on his performance in the national qualifying events in view of the Sports Ministry's circulars, dated 26.12.2008 and 12.03.2009. By the said letter, it was also clarified that the appellant's status as OCI did not preclude him from participating in the National events, and that if his team qualified for the selection trial, his presence on the team would disqualify the team. 5. Pending the Writ Petition, the appellant had also filed M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011; of which, M.P.No.1 of 2011 was for interim stay of operation of the letter, dated 23.12.2010, of the first respondent; and M.P.No.2 of 2011 for a direction to the first respondent to permit the appellant to participate in the National/Zonal Selection Trials to be held in April/May,2011, for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl event. 6. The above miscellaneous petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge, stating that the petitioner/appellant was not entitled to the interim reliefs claimed. Hence, these Writ Appeals. 7. Along with these appeals, the appellant also filed M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.A.No.482 of 2011 for interim stay of the operation of the letter of the first respondent, dated 23.12.2010; and M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.A.No.483 of 2011 for an interim direction to the first respondent to permit him to participate in the Selection trials to be held in April 2011 for the 2011 International events viz., Zonal and Bermuda Bowl World Championship, pending disposal of the appeals. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 9. On 22.03.2011, this Court, while admitting the Writ Appeals, granted the interim reliefs in M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011, as sought for by the appellant, without any conditions and observations. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 9. On 22.03.2011, this Court, while admitting the Writ Appeals, granted the interim reliefs in M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011, as sought for by the appellant, without any conditions and observations. By the grant of the said reliefs, the appellant was permitted by the first respondent to participate in the selection trials for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl Bridge Championship and his grievance was redressed, and, therefore, nothing survives for consideration in these Writ Appeals and they have become fructuous. 10. Coming to M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.A.No.483 of 2011, the prayer is for a direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner/appellant to participate in the 2015 Bermuda Bowl Bridge Championship due to be held in Chennai from 26.09.2015 to 10.10.2015. 11. In the above regard, it is to be stated that when the reliefs sought for in the Writ Appeals have become infructuous, the miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2014, which is for a different relief and unconnected to the one of the writ appeal, cannot be clubbed with the appeal when the writ petition is very much alive before the single Judge, and the same has to be decided by the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but not this court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In other words, the appellant, without exhausting the remedy before the writ court, has approached this appellate court directly, which approach, in our considered opinion, is not entertainable, the reason being that the cause of action in the miscellaneous petition is alien and irrelevant to the appeals, which are filed against the interim orders. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner/appellant to file a similar petition before the writ court, in which event, we, considering the importance and urgency in the matter, request the said court to dispose of the miscellaneous petition as well as the Writ Petition, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month. 12. Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2014 are closed.