ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the orders of requisitioning dated 09.10.2023 and 25.10.2023, passed by the respondents under Section 160 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short “the Act of 1951”) by the District Election Officer (Collector), Jaipur by which certain parts of the premises of the petitioner have been requisitioned for election activities of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly General Election, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an educational institution and imparting education to the students and in all eleven educational institutions are running in the same campus and more than eight thousand students are studying in the premises of the petitioner’s campus. Counsel submits that by way of passing order dated 09.10.2023, the respondents are taking possession of 19 rooms for conducting the election activities of the forthcoming Rajasthan Legislative Assembly General Election, 2023. Counsel submits that the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the District Election Officer is not in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 160 of the Act of 1951. Counsel submits that as per the amendment, contained under Section 160 of the Act of 1951, the premises can be taken only for the purpose of polling station or for the purpose of counting, but here in the instant case, the respondents are bent upon to use the premises of the petitioner for other election activities. Counsel further submits that under Section 160 of the Act of 1951, it is only the State Government, who is competent to pass such orders, but in the instant case, the District Election Officer has passed the order, without any competence. Counsel submits that as per Section 166 of the Act of 1951, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on the Government by virtue of the provisions of Section 160 to 165 of the Act of 1951 shall be specified in the direction, can be exercised or discharged, but here, in the instant case, the powers have not been delegated by the State, upon the District Election Officer to take the premises of the petitioner reportedly for other election activities. Counsel submits that on earlier occasions also, the respondents have taken the premises of the petitioner for conducting the election activities, hence, aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4507/2001 (Shri Bhawani Niketan Shiksha Samiti Vs. District Returning Officer) and the same was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.02.2015 by which a direction was issued to the respondents that in case, in future, the respondents require to requisition of the premises, then they shall as far as possible not to take over the building of the running school or college and shall take only limited number of rooms for the purpose of training of their staff in consultation with the Secretary of the petitioner and shall provide compensation at par with what is being paid to the Rajasthan College or Commerce College, as per the prescribed rates. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Single Bench of this Court was assailed by the respondent by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 591/2015 (District Returning Officer (Collector), Jaipur and Anr. Vs. Shri Bhawani Niketan Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur and Ors.) and the said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2015. Counsel submits that several other institutions and campuses are available in the City, which can be used by the respondent, for conducting election activities. Counsel further submits that the practical and theory examination of the students are going to commence in the month of November and December, 2023 and by way of the act of the respondent not only their studies would be disturbed but also their career would also be jeopardized. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Maa Bhagwati Nirashrit Samaj Sewa Sansthan through Manager vs. Election Commission of India & 2 others reported in 2014 (SCC) (OnLine) All. 5460 and judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Panvel Agriculture Produce Market Committee vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2010(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 489. 3. 5460 and judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Panvel Agriculture Produce Market Committee vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2010(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 489. 3. Per contra, learned Advocate General as well as learned Additional Advocate General opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that a big chunk of land measuring around 555 bighas was allotted to the petitioner by the State free of cost and the respondents are utilizing only 19 rooms and the same land is situated in the campus of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that conducting election process is a sovereign function of the State and an adequate amount is always paid to the petitioner, as compensation, in terms of Section 161 of the Act of 1951. Counsel submitted that once the election process has started as per the Articles 324 & 329 of the Constitution of India, the same should not be interfered or stopped by this Court by exercising its writ jurisdiction, contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submitted that commencement of the election process starts the moment, the notification is issued by the Election Commission of India and in the instant case the notification has been issued on 09.10.2023 and thereafter the election activities have started and by way of issuing the order dated 09.10.2023, the District Election Officer has directed to take certain rooms of the petitioner-institution for election activities for departure and arrival of the polling parties for collection of Electronic Voting Machines (for short ‘EVMs’) etc. The remedy lies with the petitioner to challenge the action in a separate proceedings after the completion of the election process. Counsel submitted that in the earlier round of litigation also, this Court has permitted the respondent to use the limited number of premises of the petitioner, subject to taking prior consent of the Secretary of the petitioner-Society. Counsel submitted that no restriction was imposed by this Court, while deciding the earlier petition, filed by the petitioner. Counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is not warranted. In support of their contentions, counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:- i) Mohinder Singh Gill and Another reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 ; ii) A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. Counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is not warranted. In support of their contentions, counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:- i) Mohinder Singh Gill and Another reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 ; ii) A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1982) 2 SCC 218 ; iii) Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 ; and iv) Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 . 4. On instructions, learned Additional Advocate General has made a statement at the Bar that 19 rooms and certain portion of the petitioner’s premises are required for limited number of days i.e. with effect from 08.11.2023 till 26.11.2023 and the premises would be vacated by the evening of 26.11.2023. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner educational institution would remain closed till 15.11.2023, due to Deepawali festival vacations, hence, 19 rooms and certain portion of the premises of the school would not disturb the studies and examinations of the students. 5. Heard and considered the rival submissions made at Bar and peruse the material available on the record. 6. Holding of election is a sovereign function and the Election Commission, having regard to the provisions contained in the Constitution of India as well as the Act of 1951, is required to conduct the election for the purposes of upholding the democracy and the democracy being a basic feature of the Constitution of India, it is obligatory on the part of the Election Commission of India to ensure that the citizens who are entitled to vote are not deprived of their right and those who are not entitled are not permitted to do so. Full mechanism is provided for conducting free and fair election in the Act of 1951 and so far as the requisition of the premises is concerned, the same is provided under Section 160 of the Act of 1951. 7. Section 160 of the Act of 1951 provides for the circumstances, in which the premises and the vehicle can be requisitioned for election purposes. Section 160(1) of the Act of 1951 provides as follows: “160. 7. Section 160 of the Act of 1951 provides for the circumstances, in which the premises and the vehicle can be requisitioned for election purposes. Section 160(1) of the Act of 1951 provides as follows: “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 polling stations, for counting, for storage of ballot boxes, voting machines (including voter verifiable paper audit trail) and poll related material after a poll has been taken, accommodation for security forces and polling personnel; or] (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 such premises shall be requisitioned after the issuance of the notification by the Election Commission under section 30 for such election till the date notified under clause (e) thereof: Provided further 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 subsection until the completion of the poll at such election.” 8. Section 161(1) of the Act of 1951 provides for the payment of compensation to the person interested for the premises requisitioned by the State Government under Section 160 of the Act of 1951. Section 161 of the Act of 1951 is reproduced as under:- “161. Section 161(1) of the Act of 1951 provides for the payment of compensation to the person interested for the premises requisitioned by the State Government under Section 160 of the Act of 1951. Section 161 of the Act of 1951 is reproduced as under:- “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 any 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 that Government for determination, and shall be determined in accordance with the decision of such arbitrator.” 9. Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the State Government has been authorized to exercise authority of requisition of premises and vehicles for election purposes and in case, such vehicles and premises are required to be requisitioned, then such an order has to be passed, in writing mentioning therein that such vehicles and premises are required. 10. Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the State Government has been authorized to exercise authority of requisition of premises and vehicles for election purposes and in case, such vehicles and premises are required to be requisitioned, then such an order has to be passed, in writing mentioning therein that such vehicles and premises are required. 10. A bare perusal of sub clause 1(a) of Section 160 of the Act of 1954 indicates that if it appears to the State Government that in connection with an election held within the State – any premises are required or likely to be needed for the purpose of being used as polling stations, for counting, for storage of ballot boxes, voting machines (including voter verifiable paper audit trail) and poll related material, after a poll has been taken, accommodation for security forces and polling personnel etc., the Government may by an order in writing requisition such premises and make such orders, as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning. 11. Under Section 160 of the Act of 1951, State Government has been empowered to requisition premises, vehicles etc. for election purposes held within the State. As per sub section (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. Sub-section (3) says that 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 Section 160. 12. Section 161 deals with payment of compensation. Subsection (2) thereof deals with payment of compensation for requisition of vehicles. It says that whenever in pursuance of Section 160 the State Government requisitions any vehicle, vessel or animal, there shall be paid to the owner thereof the 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. 13. 13. Thus from a careful reading and analysis of Sections 160 and 161 of the Act of 1951, it is seen that State Government is empowered to requisition any premises or vehicle for election purpose within that State following the proper procedure. If any premises/vehicle is requisitioned, the period of requisition shall not extend beyond the period for which the premises/vehicle is required. During the period of requisition of the premises/vehicle, owner thereof shall be paid compensation on the basis of rates determined by the State Government. 14. The scope and ambit of Section 160 and 161 of the Act, in the background set forth above, came up for consideration before the Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Ram Narayan Singh v. Election Commission and Ors., reported in 1996 (1) P.L.J.R. 621 after taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements made by the Apex Court, particularly, in the case of Jiwani Kumar Paraki v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC 1707 , the Full Bench has laid down a law that while the property including the vehicle, after ‘requisition’ for the purpose of conducting election, remains under the possession of the requisitioning authority, the real owner loses its control and possession. In that situation, for the purpose of liability to pay damages, the requisitioning authority becomes owner of the vehicle. The Full Bench further held that though there was no specific provision for making payment of compensation due to loss and damage, but it would be always open to the Court, while exercising extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant such relief in public interest and equity. The Full Bench has also held that in such a situation, the State Government alone has to be held responsible for payment of compensation for the loss and damages caused to the vehicle on account of accident during the course of election duty. Portion of Paragraphs-9 & 13 of the aforesaid Full Bench judgment being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow: “9. It is well known that in event of “acquisition” or ‘requisition’ of a vehicle or any other property by the Government, either perennial or permanent, no owner can raise objection, except to the extent as provided by a particular statute. Portion of Paragraphs-9 & 13 of the aforesaid Full Bench judgment being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow: “9. It is well known that in event of “acquisition” or ‘requisition’ of a vehicle or any other property by the Government, either perennial or permanent, no owner can raise objection, except to the extent as provided by a particular statute. But in both the cases, the owner will have no control over the property while the same remains under the possession of the Government. There cannot be any dispute that on strict interpretation of Article 300A of the Constitution, there will be definitely a difference under ‘requisition’ or ‘acquisition’ of a property. The Supreme Court while examining the difference, in the case of Jiwani Kumar Paraki v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. : AIR 1984 SC 1707 held that normally the expression ‘requisition’ is taking possession of a property for a limited period in contradiction of ‘acquisition’. But the two concepts are different. In case of ‘acquisition’, title passes to the acquiring authority, while on ‘requisition’ the possession goes to such authority. One is taking over of the title and the other is taking over the possession. But admittedly, while the property remains under possession of the requisitioning authority, the real owner losses its control and possession. In these backgrounds, it can safely be urged that for the purpose of liability the requisitioning authority becomes owner of the vehicle… 13. In these backgrounds, although there is no specific provision for making payment of compensation due to loss or damage, it is always open to the Court, while exercising extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, to grant such relief in public interest and equity…” 15. Here, in the instant case, while passing the order dated 09.10.2023, a specific note has been made in the aforesaid order that for the General Election of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, 2023, the premises are required for the purpose of arrival, departure of the polling parties, collection of the EVM Machines and distribution of the election material to the polling parties and after conducting of elections, the premises are required for collection of the EVM Machines, etc. and for conducting the counting of votes at the Rajasthan College and Commerce College, Jaipur. 16. and for conducting the counting of votes at the Rajasthan College and Commerce College, Jaipur. 16. This Court finds no substance in arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any campus can be taken only for two purposes i.e. for conducting the polling or for keeping the voting machines, after conducting the elections. As per the provisions contained under Section 161 of the Act of 1951, the premises can be taken and used for other election activities also which is clear from the perusal of Section 160 of the Act of 1951. With regard to the similar controversy as involved in the present petition, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the earlier petition in the case of Shri Bhawani Niketan Shiksha Samiti (supra) and the same was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 10.02.2015 with the following directions and observations:- “Having regard to the clarification made by the learned counsel appearing for the Chief Electoral Officer, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that respondents in future if they at all require to requisition the premises of the petitioner-samiti, shall as far as possible not take over the building of running school and college and shall only take the limited number of rooms for the purpose of training of their staff in consultation with the Secretary of the petitioner-samiti and shall provide to the petitioner the compensation at par with what was being paid to the Rajasthan College and Commerce College as per the prescribed rates.” 17. While passing the aforesaid order, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted liberty to the respondents to requisition the premises of the petitioner in future also but a specific direction was issued to take over only limited number of rooms of the building of the running school and college. 18. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.591/2015. However, the said appeal was dismissed but at the same time, it was observed that: “5. We are of the considered view that the order of the Single Bench appears to be just, reasonable and in accordance with law. However, the said appeal was dismissed but at the same time, it was observed that: “5. We are of the considered view that the order of the Single Bench appears to be just, reasonable and in accordance with law. The Single Bench has sought to ensure that for holding free and fair elections which is foundation of the rule of law, due regard must be made to the imprtance of not disrupting the studies of students of various educational institutions. The other directions including that of providing of compensation at par with other colleges do not suffer from any infirmity which would warrant interference in appeal. We, however, do find merit in the submission of the learned Advocate Gerneral that the order should not be treated as precedent for other institutions as well especially regarding consultation with Secretary of the Samiti. A perusal of the order does not indicate that the directions have been issued to the State with regard to requisitioning institutions other than those managed by petitioner Samiti/respondent herein for elections in future. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Needless to mention that the order of the Single Bench shall be applicable only to the parties therein. However, the State shall, while requisitioning the premises of educational institutions for holding elections in future, try to safeguard the interests of students to prevent the disruption in their studies, as far as possible.” 19. Once the controversy involved in the petition has already been set at rest by this Court, in the earlier round of litigation on 10.02.2015 and 24.11.2015, no further interference of this Court is required, as liberty was already granted to the respondents to take limited number of rooms and in pursuance of the above directions and now the respondents have taken only 19 rooms out of 50 rooms. 20. In view of the above provisions of the Act of 1951, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents of requisitioning the campus the petitioner-Institution in connection with the election activities is illegal. For the purpose of conducting the free and fair elections, the respondent-authorities are bound to make full proof arrangement and for that purpose, they also require certain premises. The respondents have requisitioned the 19 rooms of the petitioner-Institution in accordance with law, therefore, it cannot be said that they are acting in an arbitrary manner or without any authority under the law. The respondents have requisitioned the 19 rooms of the petitioner-Institution in accordance with law, therefore, it cannot be said that they are acting in an arbitrary manner or without any authority under the law. 21. This Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the respondents, however, while deciding this petition, a direction is issued to the respondent to pay adequate amount of compensation to the petitioner in terms of Rule 161 of the Act of 1951. 22. Provisions contained under Section 161 of the Act of 1951 is clear and specific and it casts a duty on the authority requisitioning the premises/vehicles to make provisions for payment of hire/rental charges of the premises/vehicles which were requisitioned for the purpose of conducting elections. Failure to follow the procedure, as provided under Section 161 of the Act of 1951 indeed would vitiate the order passed under Section 160 of the Act of 1951. The respondents are supposed to pay adequate amount of compensation to the petitioner, as per Section 161 of the Act of 1951 within three months after completion of the Election process. 23. Considering the statements made at Bar by the counsel for the State, the respondent is directed to vacate the premises of the petitioner-Institution on 27.11.2023 and handover the possession of the same in the evening of 27.11.2023. 24. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. 25. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.