1. At the outset, Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent – Medical Council of India (for short, ‘MCI’) raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of writ petition. He submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold without considering merits of the claim not only for suppression of material facts, but for misleading the Court and/or for simultaneously pursuing parallel writ petitions in two High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without disclosing that they have filed a writ petition for similar relief and it is pending before other High Court. He invited our attention to both writ petitions and orders passed by Delhi High Court in support of the preliminary objection. On perusal thereof, we noticed that though a writ petition was filed and pending in Delhi High Court, a statement on affidavit was made in the instant writ petition, that was filed subsequently, that no other efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners and that they have not filed any other writ petition for the reliefs sought therein. We, therefore, have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length only on t