1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE SIDE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8453 OF 2004 PETITION NO.8453 OF 2004 PETITION NO.8453 OF 2004 Larsen & Toubro Limited .. Petitioner vs Union of India & Ors .. Respondents .. Mr.F.Sayyad i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co for Petitioner Mr.V.G.Mujumdar for Respondent no. 2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.P.SHAH AND : A.P.SHAH AND : A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ JJ JJ DATE: DATE: DATE: 2ND 2ND 2ND NOVEMBER, 2004 NOVEMBER, 2004 NOVEMBER, 2004 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Advocates. 2. Mr. Muzumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 fairly conceded that under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition) Act 1994, clinics are required to be 2 registered and not the ultra sound machines. He stated that the petitioner’s ultra sound machine which was seized by the Corporation has been released as per order of this Court and the seizure notice stands withdrawn. 3. In view of the statement of Mr. Muzumdar, nothing further survives in the petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of. A.P.SHAH, A.P.SHAH, A.P.SHAH, J J J S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J J J