-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 8268 of 2009 The Panvel Agriculture Produce Market Committee ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. C. G. Gavnekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradip Rajgopal for the respondent no.3. Mr. V. Masurkar, GP a/w Mr. C. R. Sonawane AGP for the Respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4– State. Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : September 25, 2009. P. C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the District Collector and District Election Officer, Riagad, Alibag whereby the vehicle of the Petitioner – institution bearing No. MH-06-8844 has been requisitioned for the period from 10/09/2009 to 25/10/2009. In the said order the Respondent – Collector has stated that the vehicle described in the chart -: 2 :- incorporated in the said order has been requisitioned alongwith driver from 10/09/2009 for the purpose of election work of the Assembly. It has also been stated that the Petitioner shall send the said vehicle in good condition with allowance to be paid to the driver in advance and on failure to do so, action will be taken. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the power under section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [for short, “the said Act”] requisitioning the premises and the vehicles for the election purpose is with the State Government and the order impugned in this petition has not been issued by the State Government and therefore it is in violation of Section 160 of the said Act. He also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 161 of the said Act whenever the vehicle is requisitioned, the owner of the vehicle is entitled for compensation and the said compensation at least shall reflect in the order, However, the impugned order does not make any reference to the said fact. He also submitted that the vehicle can be requisitioned 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 -: 3 :- of any duties in connection with such election. He submits that the order only states that the vehicle is requisitioned for the election purpose and it does not specify in which manner the vehicle will be used by the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the order lacks the said particulars, the order suffers from illegality. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submitted that there is no delegation of powers from the State Government to the District Election Officer, therefore on the said ground also the order is not sustainable. 3. We also heard the learned Government Pleader Mr. Masurkar for the State Government and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Election Commission. The learned counsel for the Election Commission has fairly conceded that the power under section 160 of the said Act is that of the State Government. He however submitted that the District Collector is a representative of the State Government and he can exercise the power, though not in the capacity of the Election Officer. 4. Mr. Masurkar, learned GP submitte that though the power is with the State Government yet it appears that the powers have been -: 4 :- delegated. We pointed out that under which provision the said powers have been delegated. By making a reference to some correspondence, he submitted that under section 160(4) of the said Act, powers have been delegated. It is interesting to note that even though the correspondence makes a reference to Section 160(4) of the said Act for delegation of powers to the Collector, we do not find any provision for delegation of powers in the said sub-section (4) of Section 160. Therefore, a reference made to that provision is irrelevant and there is nothing placed on record to show that the powers have been delegated to the District Election Officer under section 160 of the said Act. Therefore, the power is possessed by the State Government only and the State Government can only requisition the vehicles. So far as the compensation aspect is concerned, learned GP as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Election Commission submitted that compensation as per section 160 of the said Act will be paid. 5. Since we find that the order of the requisition has not been passed by the State Government and there is no delegation of powers, we quash the impugned order of requisitioning the vehicle. It requires to be quashed on one more ground, namely, that the order -: 5 :- does not speak in respect of the payment of compensation to be paid to the Petitioner in view of the provision of Section 161 of the said Act. It is obligatory for the Government to mention the compensation to be paid to the person whose vehicle has been requisitioned. 6. We would like to mention that this question has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 436 of 1998 decided on 13th February 1998 and so also in a reported judgment in 1997 ALLMR-1-73, 1997(TLS) 1344342 in the matter of Goregaon Co-op Urban Bank Ltd v/s. State of Maharashtra. In spite of the said pronouncements of this Court no steps have been taken by the Respondents to see that the orders are passed by the State Government. The present petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 10th September 2009 is set aside in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. Rule is accordingly made absolute. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)