JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard Shri A.N. Vastani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M.A. Barabde, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondents. By their consent and considering the nature of controversy placed before us, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner claims to be suffering from a specified disability, as defined in Section 2[zc] of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and complains of refusal on the part of respondent no.5 to issue her a certificate accordingly. 3. Defence of respondents is specified disability, claimed by the petitioner has been incorporated for the first time as a disability in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. When the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was inforce, such disability was not legally recognized. The system used by respondents is in consonance with the above mentioned 1995 Act and it is not updated, and therefore, it is not compatible with 2016 Act. 4. Learned A.G.P. has during arguments drawn our attention to the reply affidavit and also to provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 18[5]. She submits that after a date, as notified by the Central Government, Rule 18[5] shall come into operation and thereafter only the disability of petitioner can be examined. 5. It is further submitted that petitioner has got remedy of approaching the National Institute of Physical, Medicine and Rehabilitation, Haji Ali, Mumbai and hence, this Court should not intervene in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 18[5], does not arrest implementation of 2016 Act, and till the date is notified by the Central Government, respondents, must issue a certificate physically i.e. hard copy. After date stipulated by the Central Government, the certificate can be issued only Online. He further adds that in 2016 Act or 2017 Rules, there is no Authority like National Institute of Physical, Medicine and Rehabilitation to which such a grievance can be taken. 7. Petitioner claims to be suffering from 'Dwarfism'. She has disclosed her height to be 4 feet 6 inches and in present matter, respondents have not chosen to rebut it. He further adds that in 2016 Act or 2017 Rules, there is no Authority like National Institute of Physical, Medicine and Rehabilitation to which such a grievance can be taken. 7. Petitioner claims to be suffering from 'Dwarfism'. She has disclosed her height to be 4 feet 6 inches and in present matter, respondents have not chosen to rebut it. The provisions of Schedule added to 2016 Act in paragraph A[c], defines Dwarfism to mean a medical or genetic condition resulting in an adult height of 4 feet 10 inches (147 centimeters). 8. The impugned communication dated 16.05.2018 at Annexure-J, does not contain any reason whatsoever for refusing to issue required certificate to the petitioner. In that communication all three clauses provided for incorporating the reason, are blank. 9. Only defence as noted supra, by respondents is based upon Rule 18[5]. Rule 18 is on issue of certificate of disability. Sub-rule [5] reads as under : “18(5) The State Government and Union Territory Administration shall ensure that the certificate of disability is granted on online platform from such date as may be notified by the Central Government.” Bare perusal of this sub-rule shows that the certificate of disability needs to be granted online only after a date to be notified by the Central Government. This sub-rule does not mean that till then certificate under 2016 Act or 2017 Rules, cannot be granted at all. The requirements or standards are available under the Act and the Rules, and after applying the same to the case of petitioner, the certificate is to be issued physically i.e. hard copy. This verification has to be done by respondent no.5. 10. Reason put forth by respondents for not issuing certificate i.e. hard copy is therefore, unsustainable. We in this situation, direct respondent no.5 to arrange for necessary physical/medical examination of petitioner by 21.08.2018 (evening), and to issue her a certificate as per law, forthwith on that day. 11. For dragging the petitioner to file such unnecessary petition, we direct each respondent to pay costs of Rs. 1000/- to petitioner. The Chief Secretary for State of Maharashtra shall hold necessary enquiry and recover that amount from the person found guilty in the matter. 12. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. 13. Copy of this judgment be furnished to learned counsel for the parties to act upon. 1000/- to petitioner. The Chief Secretary for State of Maharashtra shall hold necessary enquiry and recover that amount from the person found guilty in the matter. 12. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. 13. Copy of this judgment be furnished to learned counsel for the parties to act upon. Additionally we request office of the Government Pleader to communicate this order to the office of respondent no.5.