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 Co-operative bank being functioned under Act, 1969, the Registrar is vested with ample powers to regulate the proceedings, and accordingly, it is an establishment in contemplation of the the above provisions of Act, 1951. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 6. It is true, the Co-operative bank is a registered organisation under the provisions of Act, 1969. However, as per the provisions of Act, 1969, the societies are functioning independently through elected body constituted from among the members of the society/bank. 6. It is true, the Co-operative bank is a registered organisation under the provisions of Act, 1969. However, as per the provisions of Act, 1969, the societies are functioning independently through elected body constituted from among the members of the society/bank. Merely because the Registrar or any other statutory body is empowered to regulate the proceedings under any given circumstances, that does not mean that, the co-operative society is a Government body duty bound to provide vehicles free of cost when a requisition is made to provide the vehicles and staff for the election purposes. The staff of the societies/banks appointed by the societies/banks are under the control and guidance of the management and the State and its official have no manner of control over them, rather than functioning as any appellate/regulatory authority under the Act, 1969. 7. Apparently on a reading of Ext.P3 it is clear that, the request made by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that, the bank was duty bound to provide vehicle free of cost on the request made by the 1st respondent. Section 160 and 161 of the Act are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition which read thus: “160. Requisitioning of premises, vehicles, etc., for election purposes: (1) If it appears to the State Government that in connection with an election held within the State: (a) any premises are needed or are likely to be needed for the purpose of being used as a polling station or for the storage of ballot boxes after a poll has been taken. Requisitioning of premises, vehicles, etc., for election purposes: (1) If it appears to the State Government that in connection with an election held within the State: (a) any premises are needed or are likely to be needed for the purpose of being used as a polling station or for the storage of ballot boxes after a poll has been taken. (b) any vehicle, vessel or animal is needed or is likely to be needed for the purpose of transport of ballot boxes to or from any polling station, or transport of members of the police force for maintaining order during the conduct of such election, or transport of any officer or other person for performance of any duties in connection with such election, the Government may by order in writing requisition such premises, or such vehicle, vessel or animal, as the case may be, and may make such further orders as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning: Provided that no vehicle, vessel or animal which is being lawfully used by a candidate or his agent for any purpose connected with the election of such candidate shall be requisitioned under this sub-section until the completion of the poll at such election. (2) The requisition shall be effected by an order in writing addressed to the person deemed by the State Government to be the owner or person in possession of the property, and such order shall be served in the prescribed manner on the person to whom it is addressed. (3) Whenever any property is requisitioned under sub-section (1), the period of such requisition shall not extend beyond the period for which such property is required for any of the purposes mentioned in that sub-section. (4) In this section: (a) “premises” means any land, building or part of a building and includes a hut, shed or other structure or any part thereof. (b) “vehicle” means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise. 161. (4) In this section: (a) “premises” means any land, building or part of a building and includes a hut, shed or other structure or any part thereof. (b) “vehicle” means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise. 161. Payment of compensation - (1) Whenever in pursuance of section 160 the State Government requisitions any premises, there shall be paid to the persons interested compensation the amount of which shall be determined by taking into consideration the following, namely:- (i) the rent payable in respect of the premises or if no rent is so payable, the rent payable for similar premises in the locality. (ii) if in consequence of the requisition of the premises the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change: Provided that where any person interested being aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined makes an application within the prescribed time to the State Government for referring the matter to an arbitrator, the amount of compensation to be paid shall be such as the arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the State Government may determine: Provided further that where there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation, it shall be referred by the State Government to an arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the Government for determination, and shall be determined in accordance with the decision of such arbitrator. Explanation - In this sub-section, the expression “person interested” means the person who was in actual possession of the premises requisitioned under section 160 immediately before the requisition, or where no person was in such actual possession, the owner of such premises. Explanation - In this sub-section, the expression “person interested” means the person who was in actual possession of the premises requisitioned under section 160 immediately before the requisition, or where no person was in such actual possession, the owner of such premises. (2) Whenever in pursuance of section 160 the State Government requisitions any vehicle, vessel or animal, there shall be paid to the owner thereof compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the State Government on the basis of the fares or rates prevailing in the locality for the hire of such vehicle, vessel or animal: Provided that where the owner of such vehicle, vessel or animal being aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined makes an application within the prescribed time to the State Government for referring the matter to an arbitrator, the amount of compensation to be paid shall be such as the arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the State Government may determine: Provided further that where immediately before the requisitioning the vehicle or vessel was by virtue of a hire-purchase agreement in the possession of a person other than the owner, the amount determined under this sub-section as the total compensation payable in respect of the requisition shall be apportioned between that person and the owner in such manner as they may agree upon, and in default of agreement, in such manner as an arbitrator appointed by the State Government in this behalf may decide.” 8. Accordingly, by virtue of 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. On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that, the Government is duty bound to provide compensation to the vehicles in accordance with the aforequoted provisions. It may be true, when Government vehicles are requisitioned, there may not be any liability on the State to pay compensation to the vehicle or the driver. However, it is clear that, in all other cases, the State is liable to pay compensation, if vehicles are requisitioned. As I have pointed out earlier, the co-operative bank is not a State Government controlled organisation and it is functioning independently through the elected members constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1969. However, it is clear that, in all other cases, the State is liable to pay compensation, if vehicles are requisitioned. As I have pointed out earlier, the co-operative bank is not a State Government controlled organisation and it is functioning independently through the elected members constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1969. So much so, provisions of Part IXB of the Constitution of India introduced by Amendment Act, 2011 and came into force with effect from 15.2.2011, speak in volumes the independent, autonomous and democratic nature of co-operative societies/banks, constituted under the provisions of Act, 1969. These cluster of factual and legal circumstances lead me to a safe conclusion that, the stand adopted by the 1st respondent in Ext.P3 is not sustainable under law. Therefore, looking from any angle it is clear that, Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality, liable to be interfered with by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner dated 19.3.2019 at the earliest possible time and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking note of the observations contained above and after providing an opportunity of hearing.