Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34310-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5239 of 2025 Petitioner :- X Rape Victim Of Crime No.250 / 2021 P.S. Para Lucknow Thru. Her Mother Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Woman Welfare Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner claims to be a victim of offence in the context of which a case has been registered bearing Case Crime No.250/2021 which was initially registered for the offences committed under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. but subsequently chargesheet has been filed under Sections 363, 366, 376AB I.P.C. and Sections -5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2022 on 20.09.2021. The claim of the petitioner for compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmibai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh has been declined by the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed by District Magistrate/ Chairman, District Sanchalan Samiti, Lucknow. 3. We have perused the order. Except to say that on a persual of the F.I.R., chargesheet and the medical report, the Committee did not find it appropriate to grant compensation and further that if the F.S.L. report is received, the matter would be re- considered, nothing else has been stated. In our opinion, this is not a speaking decision in the light of the scheme referred. The appropriate course was to refer to the relevant conditions or criteria mentioned for payment of compensation from the said 'Kosh' and as to why the petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Specific reasons should have been given. Such vague and nebulous averments are not in confirmity with the principles of natural justice. Nothing is mentioned as to why F.S.L. report is required. What is lacking in the F.I.R., Chargesheet and the medical reports which persuaded the Committee not to grant the compensation. We, accordingly, see no reason to call for a counter affidavit as apparently the order cannot be sustained on account of violation of principles of natural justice which requires a speaking decision to be taken. We, accordingly, quash the same and direct the committee headed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow to reconsider the matter in the light of what has been observed hereinabove and take a fresh decision positively within one month and communicate it to the petitioner accordingly, 4. With these observations/ direction, the writ petition is allowed. (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 3.6.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench