JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner on record, Sri D.V.Sitharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for 1st respondent-Hyderabad Cricket Association, Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for 3'd respondent, Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for 4th respondent, Sri B.Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel for Sh respondent, Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for 6il' respondent and Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel for 81h respondent. 2. In the main writ petition, challenge is to the common order dated 8.3.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of 2018 and Case No.5 of 2017, disqualifying the petitioner as President of Hyderabad Cricket Association on the grounds, namely there is conflict of interest and the petitioner suffers disqualification as he is holding the post of Advisor, which has the status of Cabinet rank in the State Government. 3. In the elections of Hyderabad Cricket Association that took place, petitioner herein got elected as President of the Association on 31.3.2017. On the ground that the petitioner suffered disqualification to hold the said post in view of the above mentioned reasons, the respondents 3 to 8 filed applications before the 2'd respondent-Ombudsma n. The 2'd respondent by way of the impugned orders held that the petitioner suffered disqualification to hold the post of President in view of the above mentioned reasons. 4. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner that there is no conflict of interest as stipulated under clause (g) of Rule 1 of Justice Lodha Committee Rules and Regulation 38. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein does not fall under the said clauses as he has no conflict of interest with Hyderabad Cricket Association. It is further submitted that the alleged conflict should be in the direction of necessarily and directly affecting the game of cricket and that such interest should relate to game of cricket in the form of performance i.e., selection process of players, the transparency of selection, the performance of players, selection of the players etc., which are related to game. It is further submitted that such conflict with the game of cricket is non existent in the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that such conflict with the game of cricket is non existent in the case of the petitioner. On the aspect that the petitioner suffered disqualification on the ground that he is holding the post of Advisor, which is a cabinet rank post, it is submitted that he is neither a Minister nor a Government Servant as provided under Rule 6(5)(1Xd) of the Rules, as such the case of the petitioner does not attract the disqualification as mentioned therein. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein is neither a Minister as stipulated under Rule 6, nor he is a Government Servant and that the word 'Minister' mentioned in the above Rule gets attracted only when he is appointed under Article 164 of the Constitution of India and that the same should be by way of administering oath of secrecy. It is submitted that neither the oath of secrecy, was administered nor the petitioner is a member of the Council of Ministers, as such, disqualification under rule 6 does not get attracted. 6. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents 3 to 8 that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned order and a Writ in the nature of Certiorari does not lie to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any jurisdictional error. It is also submitted by the learned Advocates appearing for respondents that in view of pending litigation between Hyderabad Cricket Association and the petitioner herein, it cannot be said that there is no conflict of interest. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the contract stood terminated as long back as in the year 2011. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Respondents that since the petitioner herein is holding the office of profit under the State Government, he is not entitled to continue as President of the Association in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India and others. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, the said judgment has no relevance to the facts of the case in view of the specific rules in the instant case. 8. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, the said judgment has no relevance to the facts of the case in view of the specific rules in the instant case. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has been functioning as President of the Association since 31.3.2017 and all the above aspects raised by the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Advocates for Respondents need to be examined in detail after filing counter affidavits. In the considered opinion of this Court, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. 9. In view of the same, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.