This reference made by an order dated 23 December, 2010 of a Division Bench of this Court raises the following questions :-

1. Whether the power to search, seize and seal “any other material object” conferred by Section 30 of the Preconception and pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 includes the power to search, seize and seal an ultrasound machine or any other machine or equipment, if the Appropriate Authority or Authorized Officer has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under the Act?

2. Whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench in Dadasaheb (Dr.) s/o Popatrao Tarte Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2010 (2) Mah. L.J. 110 taking the view that Section 30 does not confer such power in respect of an ultrasound machine lays down the correct law?

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Gynecologist running a Maternity and Surgical Hospital at Kolhapur with an ultrasound machine. The hospital has been registered as a Genetic clinic/Ultrasound Clinic under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 "(the Act)" and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 “(the Rules)”. Registration was granted by the competent authority on 3 September 2003 and has been extended from time to time till 31 March 2013. On 22 January 2009, the Appropriate Authority at Kolhapur along with his officers went to the petitioner’s clinic in view of a complaint that the petitioner was using the ultra sound machine for conducting sonography on pregnant women for determination of sex of foetus. The Appropriate Authority seized the record of the hospital and the ultrasound machine and put his seal on the record and the ultrasound machine after drawing a panchanama in presence of the petitioner’s husband, who is also a Gynecologist.

On 17 February 2009, the Appropriate Authority issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the registration granted in her favour should not be suspended. The petitioner sent a reply dated 5 March 2009. The Appropriate Authority passed order on 7 March 2009 suspending the registration granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act and the rules. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Kolhapur under Section 27 of the Act, on 31 August 2009.

3. In the present petition filed on 14 September 2010, the petitioner has challenged the action of the Appropriate Authority seizing and sealing the ultrasound machine on the ground that the Appropriate Authority and the Authorized Officer does not have any power to seize and seal an ultrasound machine. At the time of the preliminary hearing of this petition, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Dadasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010(2) Mah.L.J. 110) in support of the contention that the Appropriate Authority has no power to seize or seal an ultrasound sonography machine. The following observations are contained in paragraph 12 of the judgment:-

“On clear reading of the provisions under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 as well as the provisions under Rules of 1996 make it clear that the Appropriate Authority is empowered to seize the documents, record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found in the Genetic Clinic, Genetic Centre, or the General Laboratory. But on clear and bare reading of the provision under the Act as well as the rules it nowhere provides that the authority is empowered to seize the machinery/the machine used in the Genetic Clinic. If it is so, the authority is not empowered to seize the Ultra Sonography Machine under the provisions of Law. In the premise, the case of the petitioner is covered under the citation as the Rule given by