JUDGMENT : V.G. Arun, J. 1. The vehicle belonging to the petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, was requisitioned by the 2nd respondent during the general elections to the Lok Sabha conducted in 2024. The proceedings in this regard issued by the 2nd respondent is produced as Ext.P1. Later, the registration number of the vehicle, which was mistakenly shown in Ext.P1, was corrected by Ext.P2 and the period of requisition extended. Still later, another order was passed by the 3rd respondent extending the period of requisition from 27.04.2024 to 04.06.2024. According to the petitioner, although extension was only up to 04.06.2024, the vehicle was returned only on 10.06.2024. As the respondents did not pay any rent to the petitioner, Ext.P5 representation was submitted requesting for payment of Rs.1,56,398/- (Rupees one lakh fifty six thousand three hundred and ninety eight only) towards rent. The respondents having failed to accede to the request, this writ petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, having requisitioned the vehicle, the 2nd respondent is bound to effect payment. It is pointed out that the issue is covered by Ext.P6 judgment of this Court. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission submitted that the stand taken by the 2nd respondent is that, as the requisitioned vehicle belongs to a Co-operative Bank, it is to be treated as a Government Vehicle and therefore, no amount is payable towards rent. It is fairly submitted that the issue is covered by Ext.P6 and the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 10591/2020, to both of which, the 2nd respondent is also a party. The Standing Counsel also made available a copy of G.O. (Rt) No. 271/2024/ELEC dated 17.04.2024, which prescribes the manner in which the rent is to be calculated. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-submitted that the demand for rent is made based on such calculation. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to pay rent on the premise that the vehicles of Co-operative Societies are to be considered as departmental vehicles. The said aspect has been dealt with by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “8. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to pay rent on the premise that the vehicles of Co-operative Societies are to be considered as departmental vehicles. The said aspect has been dealt with by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “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. 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.” 5. I am in respectful agreement with findings above. Moreover, being a party to the judgment the findings therein apply to the 2nd respondent with full vigour. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 request made by the petitioner within two months, in accordance with G.O. (Rt) No. 271/2024/ELEC dated 17.04.2024 and release the amount for which the petitioner is found entitled within a further period of one month.