JUDGMENT : Shekhar B. Saraf, J. 1. The two writ petitions herein are arising out of the self-same cause of action and are therefore taken up for hearing analogously. W.P. 4767 (W) of 2018 2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated April 4, 2018 passed by the Registrar, West Bengal Medical Council holding the writ petitioner guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect and removing her from the register of registered medical practitioners maintained by the Council for a period of one year. The above action has been taken under Section 25(A) (ii) of the Medical Bengal Act, 1914. The petitioner submits that the incident in question took place on February, 2017 wherein the petitioner had performed the procedure of angio embolization. The petitioner further submits that after the said procedure was carried out on February 16, 2017 the patient continued to remain in the hospital under intensive care unit. 3. Subsequently, the patient was removed from the Apollo Gleneagles Hospital on February 23, 2017. The said patient was admitted in S.S.K.M. Hospital and died on February 24, 2017. 4. A First Information Report was lodged in Phoolbagan Police Station on February 26, 2017 against the Apollo Gleneagles Hospital. It may be noted that the petitioner was not named in the First Information Report. Thereafter a complaint was lodged on March 30, 2017 by the respondent No. 10, being Ruby Roy (Banerjee), wife of Late Sanjay Roy, the patient who expired on February 24, 2017. 5. The Medical Council constituted a Penal and Ethical Cases Committee consisting of seven members that dealt with the entire complaint. After a period of over six months, on October 25, 2017 the committee came out with its report and specifically exonerated the writ petitioner from any wrong doing whatsoever. The Registrar specifically stated that the angio embolization was performed successfully and further stated that the members of the committee had not found any evidence of negligence or deficiency of medical service or any error which could have been a proximate or contributory cause to the death of the unfortunate patient. 6. After the above committee report came out, the Medical Council not being satisfied with the result of the same chose to constitute an expert committee to further examine the matter. 7. Mr. 6. After the above committee report came out, the Medical Council not being satisfied with the result of the same chose to constitute an expert committee to further examine the matter. 7. Mr. Manas Chakraborty, Registrar, West Bengal Medical Council appears and submits that he is unable to point out the exact provision under which this expert committee was formed. He, however, submits that action of the Medical Council is in conformity with the principles established in law. It is his submission that the expert committee's report was relied upon and accordingly charge sheet was framed against the writ petitioner on February 1, 2018. 8. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was not supplied with the documents relied upon by the expert committee to come to a conclusion of negligence against them. The writ petitioner did reply to the charge sheet but the final order of the West Bengal Medical Council dated March 29, 2018 did not taken into consideration their submissions and came to a finding that the consultant doctors concerned were rude and gave misinformation about the condition of the patient to the family members from time to time. The committee came to a finding that both the doctors had failed to discharge their duties and were found guilty of professional misconduct. 9. After going through the materials on record and after hearing both parties, this court is of the view that the respondent authorities have not been able to explain as to why the report of the seven-member committee was annulled and/or ignored. No explanation has been provided as to why a second expert committee was required to be formed and no provisions of law have been shown to justify the formation of the expert committee. 10. Since the fundamental right of the writ petitioner to carry on any profession is being curtailed and the same shall obviously harm the professional career of the petitioner, the procedure followed by the respondent authorities should not be such that it is questionable and not backed by proper reasons. Unfortunately, the same has not been done in this particular case. One is unable to understand the reason for the formation of an expert committee in this particular case. No reasons for formation of the Expert Committee has been put forward. Unfortunately, the same has not been done in this particular case. One is unable to understand the reason for the formation of an expert committee in this particular case. No reasons for formation of the Expert Committee has been put forward. This court is of the opinion that the Medical Council cannot form committees, one after the other, just to come up with the desired result that they seek. 11. It is evident from the facts that the petitioner was exonerated after a six months' enquiry carried out by a seven-member committee formed by the West Bengal Medical Council. No explanation has been provided as to why the report of such committee was disregarded by the Council that chose to form another expert committee to examine the same charges once again. Absence of proper reasons leads to a prima facie presumption that the above action was mala fide and not as per the principles established in law. 12. In light of the above, the operation of the impugned decision and/or order of the West Bengal Medical Council dated March 29, 2018 and the order dated April 4, 2018 are stayed for a period of two months from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier. 13. As questions of fact are involved in the present matter, the respondent authorities are to file affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks, reply, if any, two weeks thereafter. 14. Liberty to mention the matter. W.P. 4775 (W) of 2018 15. As the facts of this writ petition relate to the same patient, the seven-member committee that had been formed by the Medical Council had dealt with both the writ petitioners. Subsequently the expert committee had also dealt with both the writ petitioners. The allegations and charges against both the writ petitioners were also similar and the punishment meted out to the writ petitioner herein is similar except for the fact that he has been struck off from the register of registered medical practitioners for a period of six months (instead of one year for the writ petitioner in W.P. 4767 (W) of 2008). 16. In view of the above, the order passed in W.P. 4767(W) of 2018 hereinabove shall apply to this writ petitioner also.