ORDER 1. It is submitted by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG appearing for the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights that he will file a Chart indicating the constitution of Human Rights Courts and appointment of Special Public Prosecutors by the States after collecting the data as per order dated 4.1.2018. 2. At this stage, we have been apprised that in certain States, there is non-compliance of Sections 25 and 26 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act read as follows:- “ 25. Children’s Courts. - For the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify at least a court in the State or specify, for each district, a Court of Session to be a Children's Court to try the said offences: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if - (a) a Court of Session is already specified as a special court; or (b) a special court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force. 26. Special Public Prosecutor.- For every Children's Court, the State Government shall, by notification, specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases in that Court. ” 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, it is directed that the Registrar Generals of the High Courts would submit a report as regards Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. After receipt of the report, the issue shall be addressed. 4. The Registry of this Court is directed to forward the earlier order and the present order to the Registrar Generals of the High Courts with the stipulation that the reports shall be submitted within two weeks from the date of receipt of the orders. 5. The pendency of this case shall not be construed as any kind of impediment for establishment of Courts and appointment of Special Public Prosecutors if steps in that direction have already been taken. Matter be listed on 16.4.2018. _____________________________________________________________ (Dated : 29.08.2017) ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA ) ( W. P. 22537 (W) OF 2017) Order 1. 5. The pendency of this case shall not be construed as any kind of impediment for establishment of Courts and appointment of Special Public Prosecutors if steps in that direction have already been taken. Matter be listed on 16.4.2018. _____________________________________________________________ (Dated : 29.08.2017) ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA ) ( W. P. 22537 (W) OF 2017) Order 1. The petitioner assails the assumption of jurisdiction of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights in respect of a matter appearing in a newspaper on March 7, 2017 regarding illegal trading of newborn children. 2. The learned Advocate General appearing in support of the writ petition submits that, the writ petitioner as a government officer had received a summons dated July 20, 2017 from the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights. The petitioner had replied thereto by writing dated July 24, 2017 informing the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights that, the West Bengal State Commission for Protection of Child Rights had been informed with regard to such incident and that, such State Commission has already taken cognizance of the matter. Attention of the National Commission was drawn to the provisions of section 13(2) of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. In view of such provisions, request was made to the National Commission not to proceed any further. He draws the attention of the Court to the subsequent correspondence between the parties. He submits that, the National Commission by the writing dated July 24, 2017 had fixed the hearing on July 25, 2017 and had required the personal presence of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was also threatened with initiation of proceedings under section 166A of the Indian Penal Code in the event of his failure of attendance. He submits that, the date of hearing before the National Commission is fixed today. In view of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act of 2005, he submits that, the National Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject. He, therefore, seeks interim protection. 3. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 are represented. 4. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 submits on instructions that, the National Commission has sought for the information with regard to the incident only. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 6. 3. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 are represented. 4. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 submits on instructions that, the National Commission has sought for the information with regard to the incident only. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 6. It appears from the records made available to Court that, the National Commission has taken cognizance of a newspaper article appearing on March 7, 2017 regarding illegal trading of newborn children. This fact appears from a summons dated July 20, 2017 of the National Commission. The summons is addressed to the writ petitioner. 7. In response to such summons, the writ petitioner by writing dated July 24, 2017 had informed the National Commission that, the State Commission has already taken cognizance. The learned Advocate General on instructions submits that, the State Commission had taken cognizance over the same matter on February 24, 2017. That being so, it appears that the State Commission had taken cognizance prior to the National Commissioner taking cognizance of the same. 8. Prima facie it appears that, once the State Commission has taken cognizance of the same subject, the National Commission is denuded of the jurisdiction to look into such issue under the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act of 2005. Prima facie, therefore, the summons issued by the National Commission and the requirement of the National Commission on the petitioner to be present are misplaced. 9. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to request the National Commission not to proceed any further on the subject till December 22, 2017 or until further orders whichever is earlier. The writ petitioner need not be present before the National Commission. 10. The issues raised in the writ petition are such that, an opportunity should be afforded to the respondents to file affidavits. 11. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by September 22, 2017 as prayed for. Affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, be filed by October 22, 2017. 12. List the writ petition on October 30, 2017 under the heading ‘ for hearing’. 13. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.