JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. W Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Finance Departments, Government of Assam. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of speaking order dated 3.3.18, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of ex gratia grant on account of death of her husband and further seeks a direction to the respondents to pay total ex-gratia grant of Rs. 3 lacs as the next of kin of deceased killed by extremists in terms of Govt. notification dated 22.6.04 and office memorandum dt. 29.7.13. 3. Case of the petitioner is that she is the widow and next of kin of late Nripen Kalita, a resident of village Barkhanajan under Nalbari Police Station in the district of Nalbari. According to the petitioner, her husband was killed by extremists on 30.11.2000. However, none of the assailants could be apprehended. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 26.6.06 of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Relief and Rehabilitation Deptt. an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner claimed that she should be paid enhanced ex-gratia grant of Rs. 3 lacs as per notification dated 22.06.04 of the Personnel (B) Deptt, Govt. of Assam, and subsequently reiterated in the office memorandum dated 29.7.13. 5. Petitioner submitted representation dt. 8.12.17 before the Comm. & Secy. to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Mang. Deptt., seeking higher compensation. 6. With the grievance that no such, compensation was paid, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 565/2018. During dependency of the said writ petition, Commissioner and Secretary passed a speaking order dated 03.03.2018 taking a view that petitioner's husband was killed by unknown armed miscreants and not by terrorists or extremists. Therefore, her claim for enhanced ex-gratia grant was rejected. 7. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 7.1. Notice in this case was issued on 25.01.2019. 8. Respondent No. 2, i.e., Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department has filed affidavit through the Deputy Secretary. Therefore, her claim for enhanced ex-gratia grant was rejected. 7. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 7.1. Notice in this case was issued on 25.01.2019. 8. Respondent No. 2, i.e., Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department has filed affidavit through the Deputy Secretary. Stand taken in the affidavit is that from the report of the Superintendent of Police, it is evident that deceased was killed by unknown armed miscreants and not by terrorists/extremists. Therefore, the next of kin of the deceased was paid Rs. 5,000.00/- as ex-gratia grant. Claim of the petitioner for enhanced ex-gratia grant does not fall within the purview of notification dated 22.06.2004 or the office memorandum dated 29.07.2013. Passing of the speaking order has been justified. 9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 10. In the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that the previous writ petition of the petitioner, namely. WP(C) No. 565 of 2018 was disposed of on 25.02.2019 as in fructuous possibly because of passing of the speaking order dated 03.03.2018. Be that as it may, in the course of hearing on 08.05.2019, the following observations were made:- "Without entering into the controversy as to whether petitioner's husband was killed by extremists or by terrorists or by miscreants (who cannot be termed as extremists/terrorists), Court is of the view that since the factum of murder of petitioner's husband is not disputed, petitioner may be eligible for victim compensation under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, as amended, framed there under. Learned counsel for the parties may examine this aspect of the matter and make their respective submissions." 11. Before delving into the matter a little deeper, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the impugned speaking order dated 3.3.2018. Departmental Commissioner and Secretary took the view that cases of persons killed by unknown armed miscreants are not covered by the office memorandum dated 29.07.2013 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for enhanced ex-gratia grant was rejected. This order was passed during the pendency of WP(C) No. 565 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking enhanced ex-gratia grant. Departmental Commissioner and Secretary took the view that cases of persons killed by unknown armed miscreants are not covered by the office memorandum dated 29.07.2013 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for enhanced ex-gratia grant was rejected. This order was passed during the pendency of WP(C) No. 565 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking enhanced ex-gratia grant. Time and again, Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that when a Court is in seisin of a matter an administrative authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject matter. It would be amounting to interfering with the dispensation of justice by Courts. (Please see Akkadas Ali Vs. State of Assam) 2014 (4) GLT 55 : (2014) 4 GLR 3 [Writ Appeal No. 51 of 2014, decided on 12.03.2014]. It was held thus: "15. When the Court is in seisin of a matter, an administrative authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject matter at its own ipse dixit and record a finding on the issues. If such an action is taken, the same will amount to directly interfering with the dispensation of justice by the Courts of law. We have no hesitation to hold that the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hojai clearly transgressed his authority in venturing into dabble in a matter which is sub-judice before this Court. Clearly, this is an instance of an authority, trying to over-reach the orders of this Court The order dated 28.11.2013 being patently illegal and without jurisdiction, findings recorded in the said order are of no consequence." 11.1. By passing the impugned speaking order dated 03.03.2018, the departmental Commissioner and Secretary had rendered the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner infructuous. Such a course of action should be avoided by the administrative authority when a Court is examining and adjudicating the same subject matter. 12. Having said that observations made by this Court in the order dated 08.05.2019 may now be adverted to. To appreciate the matter in its proper perspective, it needs to be stated that there is no dispute to the fact that petitioner's husband was killed by unknown miscreants on 30.11.2000 (even if we do not enter into the controversy whether he was killed by extremists or terrorists or by 'ordinary' miscreants). To appreciate the matter in its proper perspective, it needs to be stated that there is no dispute to the fact that petitioner's husband was killed by unknown miscreants on 30.11.2000 (even if we do not enter into the controversy whether he was killed by extremists or terrorists or by 'ordinary' miscreants). From the affidavit of respondent No. 2, letter of Superintendent of Police, Nalbari dated 15.07.2005 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, is available. This letter discloses that on the night of 30.11.2000, some unknown armed miscreants picked up Nripen Kalita from his house and killed him by firing at Jagrabari Chowk. This has reference to Nalbari Police Station Case No. 464 of 2000, registered under Sections 448/302/34 IPC, read with Section 25 (1) B of the Arms Act, 1959. Superintendent of Police mentioned that the Investigating Officer investigated the case, but did not find any indication of involvement of any banned organization. Motive of killing of the victim was not established. As no clue could be found, therefore, Investigating Officer submitted final report. 13. From the above, what is discernible is that a crime was committed in which there was a victim. The victim died, rather killed, but the assailants could not be apprehended. Investigation reached dead end and resulted in filing of final report. Consequently, there was no trial. Matter ended thus. 14. Under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, at the conclusion of a criminal trial when the Court imposes a sentence upon conviction, the sentence may include compensation to be paid to any person, who has suffered loss or injury due to the offence. This compensation is realizable from the accused upon conviction. 14.1. Section 357-A was inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by an amendment act of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Section 357-A provides for victim compensation scheme. As per Sub-Section (1), every State Government in coordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependants, who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. Thus, Sub-Section (1) provides for preparation of a scheme by the State Government in coordination with the Central Government The scheme should provide for funds for the purpose of compensation. Thus, Sub-Section (1) provides for preparation of a scheme by the State Government in coordination with the Central Government The scheme should provide for funds for the purpose of compensation. The victim or his dependants suffering loss or injury as a result of the crime has to be compensated. While compensating, the requirement of rehabilitation has also to be factored in. Section 357-A Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:- "357-A. Victim compensation scheme- (1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who, require rehabilitation. (2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1) (3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation. (4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation. (5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after, due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months. (6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit." 15. As would be evident from the above, under Sub-Section (4) where an offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependants may make an application to the State or District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation. This provision would be squarely applicable in a situation like in the present case, where a crime had taken place, but the offender could not be traced out and consequently, no trial took place. As per Sub-Section (5), on receipt of such application, the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall after due enquiry may award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months. 15.1. Unfortunately in the present case, the departmental Commissioner and Secretary failed to appreciate or take into consideration Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. and simply rejected the claim of the petitioner, that too, when the matter was pending before the Court. 16. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 357 A Cr.P.C., Government of Assam in coordination with the Central Government framed the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his/her dependants, who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. Sub-Clause (4) of the scheme deals with eligibility for compensation. Sub-Clause-(4) is identical to the requirement of Sub-Section (4) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C.. 17. A Division Bench of this Court in Apu Dutta Vs. State of Assam; 2018 (2) GLT 585, had examined the rationale behind insertion of Section 357-A in the Cr.P.C.. It was held that Section-357-A Cr.P.C. is meant to compensate the victim or his/her dependants, who have suffered loss of injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. It was observed that victim compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. is conceptually and fundamentally distinguishable from compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. While compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is paid to the victim from the fine imposed on the accused as part of the sentence, compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. is independent of such conviction and is provided from funds made available by the State Government to compensate the victim or his dependants who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. It was held as under:- "The rationale behind insertion of Section 357-A is to compensate the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who requires rehabilitation. Victim compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. is conceptually and fundamentally distinguishable from compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.. Compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is paid to the victim from the fine imposed on the accused as part of the sentence. On the other hand, under Section 357-A Cr.P.C., every State Government is mandated to prepare victim compensation scheme in coordination with the Central Government to provide funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered crime. Though under sub-section (2) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C., it is the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Services Authority who have been entrusted with the function to determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded on recommendation made by the Court, we have been informed that Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Political (A) Department had issued notification dated 18.10.2012 framing the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, which was subsequently, amended on 15.07.2014 and 05.03.2016 providing for a schedule of compensation in tune with the Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines dated 14.10.2015 framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines provide for setting up of an initial corpus of Rs. 200 crores to be sanctioned by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to be provided as one time budgetary grant which would be supplemented from time to time with option of receiving contribution from the public. The objective of setting up of the Central Victim Compensation Fund is to support and supplement the existing Victim Compensation Schemes notified by the States/Union Territories. As per the central scheme, the minimum amount of compensation in the case of death is Rs. 2 lakhs. In parity with the central scheme, Government of Assam, as noticed above, has amended the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 vide Government notification dated 05.03.2016 providing for compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in the case of death" 18. In Apu Dutta (supra), the Division Bench observed that quantum of compensation fixed by the State of Assam appears to be on the lower side and required upward revision. 19. 2 lakhs in the case of death" 18. In Apu Dutta (supra), the Division Bench observed that quantum of compensation fixed by the State of Assam appears to be on the lower side and required upward revision. 19. It is a matter of satisfaction that the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department has responded to such observation of the High Court and issued notification dated 01.02.2019, revising the quantum of compensation under different heads. In case of death, it has been enhanced to Rs. 5 lacs. 20. In the light of the above, Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to victim compensation under Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C., but of course the quantum of compensation would depend upon various factors to be gone into during the course of enquiry by the District Legal Services Authority, which in this case would be District Legal Services Authority, Nalbari. 21. Accordingly, impugned speaking order dated 03.03.2018, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Relief and Rehabilitation Department, is set aside and quashed. 22. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nalbari is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner to victim compensation keeping in mind the discussions made above. Let the enquiry be completed within 2 (two) months from today, whereafter, adequate compensation shall be paid by the District Legal Services Authority, Nalbari or by the Assam State Legal Services Authority to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 23. A copy of this order be furnished to the Member Secretary, Assam State Legal Services Authority for doing the needful. 24. This disposes of the writ petition.