THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.16236 of 2011 Dated:28.12.2011 Between: A.Rama Ratnam, And others. …Petitioners and District Legal Service Authority, Rep.by its Secretary, Visakhapatnam, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.16236 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The second respondent herein instituted O.S.No.2526 of 2005 (renumbered as O.S.No.132 of 2008) on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for cancellation of a sale deed dated 25.05.1970, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein who are the defendants in the said suit. The petitioners raised an objection under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, to decide the question of adequacy of Court fees paid as a preliminary issue. The application was allowed by the civil Court on 20.08.2009 aggrieved by which, the second respondent unsuccessfully filed C.R.P.No.5110 of 2009. After the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition by this Court on 23.12.2010, it appears, the second respondent approached the first respondent claiming exemption from payment of Court fee under Section 12(d) and 13 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996. On consideration of the same, the second respondent issued the impugned certificate dated 08.03.2011 which is assailed in the writ petition. There is no dispute that if the second respondent is a person with disability as defined under Section 2(i) of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act), he would be entitled for the legal services including exemption from payment of Court fees. The second respondent claimed that he is an ophthalmologically challenged person (suffering from blindness), and therefore, he is a person with disability as defined under Section 2(b) read with Section 2(i) and 2(t) of the Disabilities Act. Counsel for the petitioners, however, disputes this. According to him the second respondent did not produce any material, much less, certificate issued by the Government Hospital or Government Doctors and that based on the certificate issued by a private Nursing Home, he cannot be determined to be a person with disability. This is not denied by the Counsel for the second respondent. Therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the certificate impugned in the writ petition and direct the second respondent to appear before the first respondent with appropriate certificate issued by the Government Hospital or Government Doctor. It shall also be open to the first respondent to refer the second respondent to any Government Medical Board before issuing certificate under the Legal Services Authorities Act exempting him from payment of Court fees. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 28.12.2011 vs