ORDER : 1. Despite our order dated 16th December, 2019, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, NCT of Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Punjab and Rajasthan have not filed their affidavits so for. On behalf of the State of Punjab, it is stated that the State does not intend to file any further affidavit and relies on the affidavit filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. As far as other States are concerned, as prayed, ten days’ time is granted to file the affidavit. In case the same is not filed on or before 18th March, 2020, the Chief Secretarys of the concerned States shall remain present on the next date of hearing. 2. List the matter on 24th March, 2020. 3. In the meantime, learned amicus curiae to prepare a comparative chart. 4. On the next date of hearing, we shall consider the issue of framing a national scheme for payment of compensation to victims of offences under the POCSO Act. 5. For this purpose, we request the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India to remain present in Court to assist us with regard to the formulation of scheme for payment of compensation to the victims. 6. Mr. V. Giri, learned amicus curiae, states that in some of the affidavits filed, there is a lack of clarity with regard to setting up of more than one exclusive POCSO Courts where the offences in a particular Districts are more than 300. He also submits that in a large number of affidavits filed, it is not clearly mentioned whether the Special Public Prosecutors have been exclusively appointed for the POCSO Courts or not. 7. We make it clear that in case there is a lack of clarity, we will assume that they have not been appointed exclusively and if any State wishes to clarify, it may clarify by 18th March, 2020. IA No 27641/2020 (Application on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh) 8. This application has been filed on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 9. It is pointed out that there were POCSO cases which are being tried by the normal Additional Sessions Judge not in the District Headquarters, but in Tehsil Headquarters itself. IA No 27641/2020 (Application on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh) 8. This application has been filed on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 9. It is pointed out that there were POCSO cases which are being tried by the normal Additional Sessions Judge not in the District Headquarters, but in Tehsil Headquarters itself. It has been pointed out in the affidavit that in case the count is not district-wise, but court-wise, then the number of cases may be less than 100 in each Court. 10. We accede to the request of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and allow the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to set up Courts by making calculation court-wise and not district-wise where the courts are at difference places. They need not set up non-exclusive Courts where the work in station is less than 100 cases. 11. The application is accordingly disposed of.