ORDER :

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

1. Heard Sri Vimal Srivastava, learned Government Advocate, assisted by Sri Alok Saran, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA, Sri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for respondents no.1 & 3, Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents no.2 & 6 and Sri Roshan Babu Gupta as well as Ms. Purnima Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no.4 & 5.

2. Learned AGA has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record. Sri Manoj Kumar Misra has filed objection against the appeal and objection against the interim relief application, both the objections are also taken on record.

3. This appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gansters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gangsters Act") against the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balrampur in Criminal Misc. Reference Case No.984 of 2022, State Vs. Arif Anwar Hashmi and Others, arising out of Case Crime No.156 of 2020, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gansters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Sadullanagar, District-Balrampur.

4. The first and foremost submission of the learned Government Advocate Sri Vimal Srivastava is that the issue in question relating to the party, who has been MLA of Utraula and being pensioned from the State Government, which is admissible for the Ex-MLA. The aforesaid fact has been considered vide para35 of the aforesaid impugned order. It has been further submitted that the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 has been passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balrampur. As per learned Government Advocate, the aforesaid court may not adjudicate any issue or may not pass such order in the light of the dicutm of the Apex Court in re; Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No.699 of 2016. Relevant paragraphs 5 & 9 of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced herein below:-

"5. On 4.12.2018 this Court issued the following directions :-

"1. Instead of designating one Sessions Court and one Magisterial Court in each District we request each High Court to assign/allocate criminal cases involving former and sitting legislators to as many Sessions Courts and Magisterial Courts as the each High Court may consider proper, fit and expedient. This, according to us, would be a more effective step instead of concentrating all the cases involving former and sitting legislators in a Special Court(s) in the district.

2. The procedural steps indicated by the learned Amicus Curiae, narrated above, will be followed by each of the designated Court allocated in terms of the directions above except that to whom work would be offences punishable with imprisonment for life/death against sitting M.Ps./M.L.As. M.Ps./M.L.As. would be taken as well as former up on first priority followed by sequential order indicated above without creating any distinction between cases involving sitting legislators and former legislators.

3. At this stage, we are of the view that the above directions should be made applicable to cases involving former and sitting legislators in the States of Bihar and Kerala.

The National Capital Territory of Delhi where the position is somewhat different and the difficulties of distance and territories do not come in the way the trial of cases by the Special Courts (both Sessions Court and Magisterial Court) will continue.

4. So far us the cases involving States of Kerala and Bihar are concerned, such of the case records which have been transmitted to the Special Courts in the two states will be retransmitted to the jurisdictional courts wherefrom the records have been sent for being dealt with in the manner indicated above. This will be done forthwith.

5. The registry of the High Courts of Kerala (State of Kerala) and Patna (State of Bihar) will initiate necessary action in this matter without any delay.

6. Rest of the