ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is not only the Bar Council of India which is accused of being soft in matters of disciplinary action against a lawyer but even the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India has acted no different in this case. 3. The Court has occasion to record this for a reason, after perusing the original records produced by the counsel for the MCI, the letter No.166877 dated 23.3.2010, as well as reading of the impugned order contained in Anneuxre-9. The manner in which the decision contained in Annexure-9 has been taken and communicated to the petitioner with other surrounding circumstances leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the Ethics Committee has not been ethical in its decision by applying the principle of objectivity. There is no material or evidence of the various experts from whom response was sought by the MCI through its letter dated 23.3.2010. It is evident from reading of the letter dated 23.3.2010 which has been produced by the counsel for the MCI that opinion of four experts from various diverse field and hospitals of Delhi was initially sought. Why they decided to settle down on the opinion of one Professor V.K. Ramateke alone is not being satisfactorily explained. 4. Even otherwise, Annexure-9 does not indicate that there was even a semblance of an effort made by the Ethics Committee to look into the evidence/materials as well as the assertion made by the petitioner in the affidavit or the complaint filed before the MCI. 5. The Court can only record that there is a tendency amongst the professionals to protect their kith and keen but when a matter goes to a statutory body for adjudication there is an obligation to show due dispassion and objectivity in the decision taken. Since it is lacking in the present case through and through, the Court will have no option but to quash Anneuxre-9, remand the matter back to MCI, who must ensure that none of the persons involved in the decision-making earlier are part and parcel of fresh decision. The decision must be taken by them after obtaining the opinion of the experts just like the letter dated 23.3.2010, in which names of four diverse experts are mentioned, as well as after hearing the petitioner and considering all the evidence produced by him. The decision must be taken by them after obtaining the opinion of the experts just like the letter dated 23.3.2010, in which names of four diverse experts are mentioned, as well as after hearing the petitioner and considering all the evidence produced by him. Such a cursory kind of order can never be upheld to be a decision satisfying the requirement of adjudication which is quasi in nature. 6. Writ is allowed in terms of the above. 7. The Court directs the Medical Council of India to expedite the matter after hearing the parties and take an early decision since the matter has dragged on too long due to various reasons. Matter must be decided within a period of three months from the date of production or communication of this order.