J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of respondent No.2 of a writ-application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge dated March 5, 2012 by which His Lordship admitted the writ-application of the original applicant and granted mandatory relief in favour of the original applicant pending final disposal of the main application.

2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal may be summarised as under :

2.1. The respondent No. 1 herein i.e. the original petitioner is a medical practitioner and is operating from two places, namely, Sharda Hospital and Research Centre, Varachha Road, Surat having registration No. GJ-13-0078AAA-2002 and another being Sharda Hospital and Research Centre, Majura Gate, Surat bearing registration No. GJ-13-0354-888-2007.

2.2. On April 16, 2011, the District Health Officer and Appropriate Authority of the District with the Chief from Gandhinagar carried out surprise inspection on .the premises of the petitioner at Varachha Road and, after thorough inspection, collected as many as 66 office copies of forms lying in the clinic. It appears that the original petitioner is a Gynaecologist and possesses a sonography machine.

2.3. During inspection of the clinic, the following shortcomings were noticed by the Authority :

(a) Addresses of two clinics had been mentioned in the form;

(b) Declaration of pregnant women on Form-F as prescribed under the provisions of Pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.N.D.T. Act' for the sake of brevity) were printed in English language whereas the same should be printed in vernacular languages.

(c) The Radiologist who had carried out the sonography had not signed the declaration of the Doctor conducting the ultrasound in 16 forms as required according to the P.N.D.T. Act.

(d) Signatures of four pregnant women were not taken in the Form-F which is mandatory according to the P.N.D.T. Act.

2.4. Based on the aforesaid shortcomings referred to above, a show-cause notice dated April 18, 2011 was served upon the petitioner by the District Appropriate Authority, Surat i.e. the appellant herein. On final adjudication, the Authority found that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory and accordingly vide order dated May 23, 2011 cancelled the registration No. GJ-13-0078-AAA-2002 under Sec. 20(2) of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act. The sonography machine was sealed with a direction on the original petitioner that the same shall not be used and should be kept in a store room.

2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the District Appellate Authority, Surat, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Appropriate Authority (P.C.P.N.D.T.), Gandhinagar, Health and Family Welfare Department.

2.6. It was mainly contended by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority that the two addresses printed in one form were not with any mala fide intention but the same was only with a view to avoid mistake in filling the forms from the another hospital of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the patients do not understand Gujarati language or English properly and, therefore, they have to be explained personally. Moreover, Form-F available on Internet is in English. It was conceded by the petitioner that in four forms, the patients had not signed and in 16 forms his own signature was missing. In other 46 forms, as against invasive procedure and M.T.B., it was shown as not applicable. The petitioner gave an assurance to the Appellate Authority that the same would not happen again and it was just a mistake. The petitioner also assured that he would fill up and check the forms himself in future.

2.7. The Appropriate Authority, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter, thought fit to confirm the order of the District Appellate Authority and accor