ORDER :

1. This case was reserved for orders on 19-3-2021, but before the order could be delivered, lock-down was clamped down by the competent authority with effect from 14-4-2021, consequently, this Court also remained closed and during the continuance of lock-down followed by closure of courts, summer vacation of this Court commenced with effect from 10-5-2021, therefore, this order is being pronounced today i.e. 7-6-2021 after reopening of the court after summer vacation.

2. Two applicants herein namely, State of Chhattisgarh through the Principal Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs and the Station House Officer, Police Station AJAK, Korba seek modification of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.)No.540/2020, decided on 10-12-2020 in the matter of Ram Swarup Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, 2021 Cri.L.J. 1787 : AIR 2021 OnLine Chhattisgarh 133.

3. The applicants have sought modification principally on the ground that by the notification dated 12-9-2014 (Annexure A-2) the State of Chhattisgarh has notified the Special Court specified under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC-ST Act of 1989') as 'the Special Court' under Section 28 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act') for trial of offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act, therefore, the order dated 10-12-2020 be modified and the notification dated 12-9-2014 be also incorporated in the order dated 10-12-2020 passed by this Court. In other words, the stand of the State Government – Applicants would be that the order of this Court would govern only the parties to lis, that is Ram Swarup Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, and as far as other cases on the point involved, the notification dated 12-9-2014 would hold the field.

4. Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the applicants/State, would submit singular contention that since the State Government by notification dated 12-9-2014 vide Annexure A-2 notified the special court under the SC-ST Act, 1989 for trial of offences under the POCSO Act committed against children belonging to SC/ST category and the notification dated 12-9-2014 could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition and passing of the order dated 10-12-2020, therefore, notification dated 12-9-2014 be incorporated/mentioned in the operative paragraph of the order dated 10-12-2020 passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.540/2020 for the sake of convenience and the MCC be allowed partly.

5. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant, would submit that the law declared by the highest authority of the State i.e. this Court is binding on all the authorities or tribunals under its superintendence and the State cannot ignore it, as it has not been challenged in the higher forum and the State is bound by the order and the order passed by this Court in the writ petition is binding. She would further submit that the effect of the order of the High Court in the writ petition cannot be diluted on the garb of modification of the order passed in the said writ petition. She would bring to the notice of the Court the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, In Re, (2020) 7 SCC 87 in which the Supreme Court has directed that if there are more than 100 cases under the POCSO Act in a district of the country, an exclusive/Designated Special Court will be set up, which will try no other offence except those under the POCSO Act. She would also cite the further decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, In Re, (2020) 7 SCC 112 in which the Supreme Court taking into account the affidavit filed by the State Government has clearly declined the State of Chhattisgarh to permit the exclusive POCSO Court