Judgment :- P.C. Rule. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader on the question of interim relief. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents do not have any power to seize the ultra sonography machine as no such power is conferred on the authorities under Section 30 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as "PNDT Act") and Rule 12 of the PNDT Rules, 1996. In support of the said contention, strong reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Dadasaheb (Dr.) s/o Popatrao Tarte vs State of Maharashtra and others, 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 110 . It is further submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Collector under Section 21 of the PDNT Act. The said appeal is not decided even after a period of one year and four months. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has opposed the grant of any interim relief. It is submitted that the decision in Dadasaheb's case (supra) relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17th December 2008 in the case of Lata Mangeshkar Medical Foundation vs. The Deputy Medical Officer of Health, Pune Municipal Corporation and others in Writ Petition No.7973 of 2008, but that decision was rendered altogether under a different set of facts and situation where the ultra sonography machine was seized from a charitable hospital with more than 650 beds including 70 ICU beds. It is further submitted that the decision of Division Bench in Dadasaheb's case (supra) requires re-consideration as sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act and sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 empower the appropriate authority or the authorised officer to seize "any other material object" found in the Genetic Counselling Centre, etc. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, we find substance in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. The decision in Dadasaheb's case (supra) proceeds on the footing that Section 30 and Rule 12 do not confer any power to seize the ultra sonography machine. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, we find substance in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. The decision in Dadasaheb's case (supra) proceeds on the footing that Section 30 and Rule 12 do not confer any power to seize the ultra sonography machine. However, we find that, prima facie, the provisions of Section 30 and Rule 12 are quite widely worded and provide for the power to seize not only registers and documents but also any other material object found in the Genetic Counselling Centre. 6. In our view, prima facie, the words "any material object" is not required to be read ejusdem generis with the preceeding phrases. Any "material object" would include even the ultra sonography machine. 7. In view of the above, we are inclined to take the view that the decision in Dadasaheb vs State of Maharashtra (supra) requires re-consideration and the matter deserves to be heard by a larger Bench. 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, without going into the merits of the controversy between the parties, we find that the appellate authority has not decided the appeal even after a lapse of reasonable time. We are, therefore, inclined to direct the appellate authority to hear and decide the petitioner's appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and in order to enable the petitioner to have expeditious hearing on the appeal, the petitioner agrees to appear before the appellate authority i.e. the Collector on 4th January 2011, on which date the Collector or his representative shall inform the petitioner about the date of effective hearing of the appeal. 9. As far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, we do not express any opinion at this stage, and direct that the matter may be placed before the larger Bench.