Jayant Nath, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus/directions to direct respondent No.3, namely, Delhi State Legal Services Authority to award maximum suitable compensation with interest under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2011 for the loss of life suffered in a road accident by the husband of the petitioner. A declaration is also sought that Section 4 of the said scheme is unconstitutional.

2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Gopal Singh Chauhan on 03.09.2012 met with a road accident with an unknown vehicle on Rafi Marg, New Delhi. He expired on 08.09.2012. An FIR under Section 279/338/304A IPC was registered at P.S. Tughlak Road. The accident was caused by some unidentified/unknown vehicle and the accused/driver of the offending vehicle could not be traced. An untraced report was filed in the concerned court which was accepted on 29.01.2013.

3. It is urged that the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased, due to the sudden demise of her husband, suffered grave pain, agony and loss of support as the deceased was the sole bread earner of his family. The deceased has left behind the petitioner-his wife, one daughter and two sons. After the accident, the Special Divisional Magistrate sanctioned an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner on 23.01.2013.

4. The petitioner thereafter made an application to respondent No.3 for compensation of Rs.5 lacs under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 28.01.2015 held that in exercise of powers under Sections 161/163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the SDM Chankya Puri has already sanctioned a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner and hence in terms of Section 4 of the Scheme the petitioner is ineligible for grant of compensation. The application of the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments in the case of Suresh and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 277, Kamla Devi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2004 (76) DRJ 739 and New India Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1207 to contend that respondent No.3 has wrongly not given compensation to the petitioner on a misreading of the Scheme.

7. On 01.05.2015, this Court gave an opportunity to the respondents to file their counter affidavit. On 28.07.2015, neither counter affidavit was filed nor anybody appeared for the respondents. Same was the position when the matter was listed on 26.08.2015. Hence, on that day, seeing the lackadaisical approach of the respondent towards this case we heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and reserved orders.

8. The controversy centres around the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Scheme”) which has been framed in exercise of powers under Section 357A of Cr.P.C.

9. Section 357A of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“Section 357A 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 an