1. On 02/02/2015, after hearing the petitioner and the learned AGP, I had passed the following order :-

"1. The petitioner whose Sonography Machine has been sealed on the ground of failure to maintain proper records and obtain the consent of the patient seeking to under go Sonography, is the only cause for the sealing of the Sonography machine.

2. The petitioner further submits that if at all documents are not properly maintained, they would evidence irregularity on the part of the petitioner. However, in the light of the judgment of this Court (Coram :- S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) dated 11-09-2012 delivered in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2012 in the matter of Dr. Mrs. Sukhada W/o Dilip Mulay Vs State of Maharashtra & others, it clearly lays down the law in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 that the Sonography machines can be sealed by the appropriate authority only if it is satisfied that the said machine would furnish evidence of commission of offence punishable under the Act.

3. Shri Warma, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Jalna under the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ('PCPNDT Act, 1994') has set out reasons only in paragraph 5 and there is no observation at all that the said machine has been misused or is likely to be further misused or it reveals such evidence which would prove the commission of offences punishable under the Act.

4. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents prays for a short accommodation to file an affidavit in reply. He further submits that there is one more legal remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 19(2) of 1996 Rules framed under the PCPNDT Act, 1994. Shri Warma refutes the said contention on the ground that the phraseology of Rule 19(2) is "MAY" and not "SHALL".

5. Respondent to file reply on or before the 13th Day of February, 2015. The respondent shall not seek extension of time. Stand over to 18-02-2015 for further consideration. The matter to appear on supplementary board."

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

3. The petitioner is an establishment. It is operated by Dr. Deelip Madhukarrao Patil, who is a registered medical practitioner and possesses a certificate of registration issued by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the said Act).

4. By the said certificate, the petitioner operates the Janki Hospital. The Janki Ultra Sound Centre is set up by the petitioner for carrying out Genetic Counselling/Genetic Laboratory/Genetic Clinic, per-natal Diagnostic Test, Ultra Sound Sonography as is prescribed under the said certificate of registration. The certificate of registration is for the period 07/03/2012 to 06/03/2017.

5. On 13/08/2014, respondent No.1 authority under the said Act and the Naib Tahsildar, Bhokardan, visited the petitioner's Centre and carried out an inspection. Several registers and the record, said to be relevant, were seized. The Sonography Machine of the petitioner was sealed at Bhokardan.

6. A panchanama was drawn by respondent No.1 during the visit. After sealing the machine, the same was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, preferred WP No.8739/2014 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 31/10/2014, thereby permitting the petitioner to avail of the remedy prescribed under the said Act.

7. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal under Rule 19 of the 1996 Rules. By the impugned order dated 19/12/2014, passed in Appeal No.01/2014, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.

8. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority did not consider the scope and ambit of Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules, which pertain to the procedure to be followed with regard to search and seizure.

9. The petitioner further submits that though the respo