IMPORTANT POINTS
The powers conferred under section 166 of Act, 1951 functions are delegated by the State with regard to requisitioning as per sections 160 to 165 of Act, 1951 to such officer or class of officers-The Government is duty bound to provide compensation to the vehicles in accordance with the aforequoted provisions-When Government vehicles are requisitioned, there may not be any liability on the State to pay compensation to the vehicle or the driver-In all other cases, the State is liable to pay compensation, if vehicles are requisitioned.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P3 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P3.

(ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the deprivation of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner for the period from 12.3.2019 to 23.4.2019.

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondent to pay amounts at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per day [Rs. 1000/- for the driver and Rs. 1000/- for the vehicle] for the period from 12.3.2019 to 23.4.2019.

(iv) Issue such other writ direction or order as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

As per Ext.P1 order dated 11.3.2019, 1st respondent requisitioned the vehicle belonging to the petitioner bank for the period from 12.3.2019 to 23.4.2019 for election purposes. According to the petitioner, the vehicle suffered considerable wear and tear. The expenses and the salary of the driver of the vehicle, who is the employee of the petitioner bank, for the aforesaid period was met by the petitioner. Thereupon by Ext.P2 request dated 19.3.2019 petitioner moved the respondent for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner bank on account of the use of the vehicle for the period from 12.3.2019 to 23.4.2019. It is also the case of the petitioner that, by virtue of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter called, “the Act” petitioner is entitled to get amount by way of compensation, which must be sufficient to recoup the loss suffered by the petitioner. However, the claim raised by the petitioner as per Ext.P2 dated 19.3.2019 was declined as per Ext.P3 order by the 1st respondent assigning the reason that, as per section 160 of the Act, when a vehicle is provided for election purposes no compensation is liable to be paid and the expenses of the driver was also to be borne by the organisation itself. Case of the petitioner is that, by virtue of sections 160 and 161 of Act, the institutions provided vehicles for election purposes are entitled for payment of compensation, and petitioner being a co-operative bank is entitled to get the compensation in contemplation of the aforesaid provisions.

3. Second respondent has filed a statement virtually admitting the use of the vehicle for the election purposes for the period from 12.3.2019 to 23.4.2019. Along with the statement filed, the facts furnished by the 1st respondent in the writ petition is produced as Annexure R2(a) and the letter of the 2nd respondent addressed to the 1st respondent is produced as Annexure R2(b).

4. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the 1st respondent in Annexure R2(a) is that, as per section 159(2)(iv)(b) of the Act, the staff of any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provisional, or State Act, or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the State Government, are to be made available for election work. Therefore, the Co-operative bank functioning in Kerala as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is duty bound to produce the vehicle and the 1st respondent is not liable to pay any amount towards compensation to the petitioner. It is also submitted that, as per the Act 1969, the Registrar got all pervasive control over the societies, including audit, enquiry and inspection and the power to initiate surcharge proceedings. Powers are also vested with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in order to take action against the societies. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the 1st respondent is that, the