JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---The petitioner who is a Medical Practitioner has impugned in this petition the show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 1987 issued by respondent No. 1 i.e. Maharashtra Medical Council which is annexed as Exhibit "K" to this petition. By the said petition, the petitioner has also impugned the communication dated 12th October, 1987, which is annexed as Exhibit "S" to this petition whereby the respondent No. 1- Medical Council had rejected his application to disallow Dr. Lalmalani to participate in the inquiry as a member of the Maharashtra Medical Council. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: Respondent No. 2 was examined in Sion Hospital for Primary Sterility. The petitioner had performed testicular biopsy test on the respondent No. 2 on 17-10-1985 for assessing sperm production. After the said test was carried out and receipt of the biopsy report, the respondent No. 2 had filed complaint that instead of performing biopsy test the petitioner had removed a piece of the epididymis on the left side and a piece of vas deference on the right side which according to the opinion given to the complainant by Dr. G.H. Tilak an Urologist could cause total block of his sperm conducting mechanism. Thus there was gross surgical negligence on the part of the petitioner. The said complaint was filed on 21st December, 1985 with the respondent No. 1 Medical Council, which is annexed as Exhibit "A" to this petition. The petitioner was asked to give explanation by letter addressed to him on 11th March, 1986 by the respondent No. 1 Council. The petitioner had filed his reply/objection on 9th April, 1986. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the complaint and the other material, the respondent No. 1 Medical Council issued show cause notice dated 2nd February 1987 to the petitioner wherein it has been stated that it was found by he Council that prima facie case existed for holding an inquiry into the conduct of the petitioner with regard to the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 for gross surgical negligence on his part while performing the operation of respondent No. 2 for testicular biopsy. The statement of allegation and the evidence were appended to the said show-cause notice. 3. The statement of allegation and the evidence were appended to the said show-cause notice. 3. It is the case of the petitioner in his reply dated 23rd February, 1987 annexed as Exhibit "L" to this petition filed with the Registrar of Medical Council and in this writ petition that the issue of show-cause notice by the Medical Council was not justified on the merits of the case as the petitioner had not committed any negligence while performing operation on the respondent No. 2. Secondly, it is alleged by the petitioner that the show-cause notice, though could not have been issued on the merits of the complaint but the same was issued at the instance of Dr. Lalmalani who was the member of the Medical Council at that time. According to the petitioner there was enmity between the petitioner and the said Dr. Lalmalani which started at the time of strike by Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors (MARD) which took place in July, 1984 and continued for a considerable length of time. The petitioner had vehemently opposed the said strike at the General Body Meetings held at RMO's Quarters during the period between July and August, 1984 while Dr. Lalmalani the then President of the said Association of Doctors being MARD was in favour of the continuation of the said strike. At these meetings there used to be verbal clashes between the two and considerable heat and friction was generated between them when Dr. Lalmalani had threatened the petitioner on several occasions by saying that he would ruin the petitioner and would destroy his professional career. On behalf of the petitioner, therefore, objection was raised that the said Dr. Lalmalani be not permitted to participate in the inquiry as he had been directly or indirectly interested in the case and, therefore, had bias against the petitioner. This objection was raised as a preliminary objection which was rejected by the Medical Council in its meeting held on 26th September, 1987 and was communicated to the Advocate of the petitioner by the Registrar of the respondent No. 1 Council by the letter dated 12th October, 1987. In the said communication it was also intimated to the petitioner that the Council had resolved to proceed in the said inquiry suo motu. That decision seems to have been taken by the majority of the members of the Council. In the said communication it was also intimated to the petitioner that the Council had resolved to proceed in the said inquiry suo motu. That decision seems to have been taken by the majority of the members of the Council. The petitioner has impugned the decision of the Council taken on 26th September, 1987 and communicated to him by the letter dated 12th October, 1987 which is annexed as Exhibit "S" to this petition. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the decision of the respondent No. 1 Council taken on 26th September, 1987 to permit the said Dr. Lalmalani to participate in the inquiry should be quashed and set aside on the ground that there was enmity between the petitioner and the said Dr. Lalmalani for the reasons which have been stated in this petition and also in the written statement dated 23rd February, 1987 filed with the Council in reply to the show-cause notice. Mr. Dwarkadas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated across the bar that at present the said Dr. Lalmalani is not the member of the respondent No. 1 Council. In view of the said situation we are not required to consider the said point and the allegations made by the petitioner against Dr. Lalmalani in order to exclude him from participating in the inquiry. In any event, without accepting the allegations made against the said Dr. Lalmalani as true, we are of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play the said Dr. Lalmalani should not be party to the said inquiry directly or remotely or participate or be in any way connected with the inquiry that may be held against the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 1987 issued to the petitioner. 5. So far as the challenge to the decision of the respondent No. 1 Council to proceed with the inquiry suo motu on the ground that the same was motivated by the interest shown and the bias on the part of the said Dr. Lalmalani is concerned, we are of the view that the Medical Council which is concerned about the discipline to be observed by the medical fraternity, could have held the inquiry suo motu. Lalmalani is concerned, we are of the view that the Medical Council which is concerned about the discipline to be observed by the medical fraternity, could have held the inquiry suo motu. On the basis of the allegations made in the petition it will not be possible to hold that the decision of the Council to proceed with the inquiry suo motu was motivated by Dr. Lalmalani as alleged in the petition. The material on record would not per se justify such inference. From Exhibit "S" which is the communication dated 12th October, 1987, we gather that the decision to proceed with the inquiry suo motu was taken by the majority of the members of the Council. We have no reason to hold that majority of the members of the Council had acted in the matter at the instance of one member i.e. Dr. Lalmalani as alleged. Though the respondent No. 2-original complainant had not turned up on the dates for the inquiry, yet it appears that on the basis of his complaint the explanation was called for by the Council and preliminary investigation was made and thereafter the Council was satisfied that there was material to proceed against the petitioner and, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to him. It cannot be disputed that the respondent No. 1-Council has not yet taken any decision on the conduct of the petitioner and it is only at the stage of show-cause notice which is issued to the petitioner in reply to which written statement has been filed by the petitioner. It will be for the Council, members of which are having sufficient technical knowhow in the medical science and are, therefore, competent to decide on the merits of the complaint filed against the petitioner, to consider the question whether the petitioner was in any way negligent in his professional duty. We have no doubt that the members of the Medical Council will decide the said question in all fairness and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in that behalf. It would not be expedient or proper for this Court to stifle the inquiry which was being contemplated against the petitioner by issuing show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 1987. Such enquiries are necessary in the public interest in order to earn the confidence of the public in the medical profession. It would not be expedient or proper for this Court to stifle the inquiry which was being contemplated against the petitioner by issuing show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 1987. Such enquiries are necessary in the public interest in order to earn the confidence of the public in the medical profession. In fact, it would be in the interest of the petitioner as well to vindicate his stand before the Medical Council on merits and show that there was no professional negligence or misconduct on his part. It would, however, be open for the petitioner to contend before the Medical Council that the material relied on by the Medical Council for the purpose of issuing show-cause notice was not sufficient to hold disciplinary inquiry against him. 6. In the result, we direct that the respondent No. 1-Council will decide the show-cause notice after affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity of being heard and to lead his evidence and also give him hearing on the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected in the preliminary inquiry, the Medical Council was justified in issuing the impugned show-cause notice (Exhibit "K"). In the interest of justice and fair play and without in any way directly or indirectly casting aspersions or reflecting on the conduct of the Council or the said Dr. Lalmalani, we further direct that the said inquiry will be held by the respondent No. 1-Council without the participation of Dr. Lalmalani in any way either directly or remotely in the said inquiry. Since the said inquiry was already delayed due to the stay granted by this Court during the pendency of this petition, the respondent No. 1-Council is directed to decide and dispose of the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible. Rule is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Rule disposed of accordingly. *****