D.D. Sinha, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

2. The petitioner is challenging the legality and propriety of notice/order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 and order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the respondent no.4. Similarly, a direction is sought against the respondent nos.2 and 3 to release and/or return to the petitioner sonography machine seized vide order dated 21.6.2011.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

3. Mr.Thorat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the action of the respondent-authorities is wholly illegal, incorrect and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. It is contended that the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act require the Doctor to keep a record in the clinic as prescribed under the Rules, failing which it can be presumed that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 are contravened by such Doctor. It is submitted that before drawing presumption of contravention of section 5 or 6, opportunity must be given to the Doctor to disprove the said presumption as per the scheme of subsection (3) of section 4 of the Act. Th