Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the President of Manakad Panchayat in Idukki District. The Panchayat has a strength of eight members of whom one has resigned. Five members of the Panchayat, respondents 5 to 9 gave notice to the 2nd respondent, District Panchayat Officer, of their intention to move Ext.P2 motion of no confidence in the President. The 2nd respondent convened a meeting of the Panchayat to consider the motion and issued notices to the members of the Panchayat Ext. P1 is a copy of the notice served on the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed this original petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext P1 and to direct the 2nd respondent to forebear from proceeding further in pursuance of Ext. P1. Respondents 5 to 9 have got themselves impleaded as supplemental respondents. 2. Ext. P1 is challenged in the original petition mainly on two grounds, namely, that the 2nd respondent has no legal competency to convene the meeting as he purported to do under Ext. P1, and that Ext. P2 resolution not being in the form notified by the Government should not have been acted upon by the 2nd respondent. 3. S.54 of the Kerala Panchayats Act (for short 'the Act') deals with motion of no confidence in the President or Vice-President. Sub-s. (2) of S.54 requires written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed by the Government, signed by such number of members as will constitute not less than one half of the strength of the Panchayat, together with a copy of the motion proposed to be made to be delivered by any two members signing the notice in person, to the Deputy Director. Sub-s. (3) as amended by Act 22 of 1967, states, inter alia, that any officer of the Government not below the rank of District Panchayat Officer authorised by the Deputy Director in this behalf shall convene a meeting of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion and the officer shall give to the members, notice of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor. The other sub-sections deal with the manner in which the meeting is to be conducted, vote to be taken... A copy of the minutes is to be forwarded by the officer presiding at the meeting to the Director. The other sub-sections deal with the manner in which the meeting is to be conducted, vote to be taken... A copy of the minutes is to be forwarded by the officer presiding at the meeting to the Director. If the motion is carried, the Director shall remove the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, from office by notification in the gazette, unless the latter resign office within two days after the passing of the motion. 4. Sub-s. (2) of S.143 of the Act reads thus: "(2) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed the Director, Deputy Director or Collector may, by notification, authorise any officer or person to exercise in any local area in their respective jurisdiction, in regard to any Panchayat, or any class of Panchayats or all Panchayats in that area, any of the powers vested in him by this Act and may in like manner withdraw such authority." (Emphasis supplied) 5. The rules referred to in S.143 (2) have been made by the Government. They are Kerala Panchayats (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1963 (for short'the Rules'). R.2 states that any delegation under sub-s. (2) of S.143 of the Act, shall be made only with the previous sanction of the Government. 6. It is by Ext. P3 that the Deputy Director of Panchayats authorised the 2nd respondent. District Panchayat Officer, under S.54 (8) of the Act to convene meetings for consideration of motions of no confidence in the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Panchayats in Idukki District. Undoubtedly Ext. P3 evidences the authorisation referred to in S.54 (3) of the Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext. P3 is an authorisation to which S.143 (2) is attracted, in which case, the authorisation has to satisfy R.2 of the Rules; that means Ext. P3 authorisation could be made only with the prior sanction of the Government. If that be so. since there is no case put forward for the respondents that Ext. P3 was preceded by prior sanction of Government, Ext. P3 would be invalid. 7. The question therefore is whether the authorisation contemplated in S.54 (3) of the Act is one to which S.143 (2) of the Act will be attracted. S.143 (2) of the Act contemplates authorisation by any of the officers specified therein namely, the Director, Deputy Director or Collector. The person to be authorised may be any officer. 7. The question therefore is whether the authorisation contemplated in S.54 (3) of the Act is one to which S.143 (2) of the Act will be attracted. S.143 (2) of the Act contemplates authorisation by any of the officers specified therein namely, the Director, Deputy Director or Collector. The person to be authorised may be any officer. The subject-matter of the authorisation may be the exercise within their jurisdiction, in regard to any Panchayat or class of Panchayats or all Panchayats in the area, of any of the powers vested in him by this Act. The word "him" refers to the officers granting the authorisation namely, the Director, Deputy Director or the Collector. A plain reading of sub-s.(2) of S.143 of the Act will show that the authorisation contemplated therein is the authorisation to exercise power vesting in the authority granting the authorisation. When such authorisation is granted, prior sanction of Government is necessary under R.2 of the Rules. On the other band, if the authorisation relates to exercise of power not vesting in the authorising officer, but of some other power, S.143 (2) is not attracted and consequently R.2 of the Rules does not apply and previous sanction of the Government is not necessary. 8. If the power of convening a meeting as contemplated in S.54 (3) of the Act is a power vested in the Deputy Director by the Act, certainly the authorisation for convening the meeting will fall squarely within the area of operation of S.143(2) of the Act. If, however, the power of convening a meeting, which has been, so to say, granted to the District Panchayat Officer, is not a power vested in the Deputy Director by the Act, S.143(2) will not be attracted since in that case the Deputy Director is merely granting an authorisation and not granting an authorisation in regard to a power vested in him. 9. Sub-sec. (2) of S.54 specifically states that the written notice of intention has to be delivered to the Deputy Director. Sub-sec. (3) of S.54 states that the officer who is to convene the meeting is "an officer of the Government not below the rank of the District Panchayat Officer authorised by the Deputy Director in this behalf". Sub-sec. 9. Sub-sec. (2) of S.54 specifically states that the written notice of intention has to be delivered to the Deputy Director. Sub-sec. (3) of S.54 states that the officer who is to convene the meeting is "an officer of the Government not below the rank of the District Panchayat Officer authorised by the Deputy Director in this behalf". Sub-sec. (3) does not indicate expressly or by necessary intendment that the power of convening the meeting is vested in the Deputy Director and he is to delegate or confer that power on the subordinate officer. Sub-sec. (4) says that the officer authorised under sub-sec. (3) shall preside at the meeting provided that under the contingency stated therein, he may authorise an officer not below the rank of Tahsildar to preside over the meeting. The other sub-sections of S.54 or the provisions of the Act also do not indicate in any manner that the power of convening the meeting is vested in the Deputy Director. 10. It is thus clear that even though the power or duty of receiving the notice of intention to make the motion is vested in the Deputy Director, the power of convening the meeting is not vested in him by the Act. The power of convening the meeting is vested only in the officer referred to in sub-sec. (3) of S.54 namely, an officer not below the rank of District Panchayat Officer authorised by the Deputy Director in that behalf. When the Deputy Director makes an authorisation, it does not amount to authorising the District Panchayat Officer to discharge a power vested in the Deputy Director. On the other hand, it only means that the identity of the officer who is to exercise the power under sub-s (3) of S.54 of the Act is located or fixed by the Deputy Director. The authorisation contemplated in S.54(3) of the Act, not being an authorisation by the Deputy Director in regard to a power vested in him by the Act, it will not attract the provisions in subsection (2) of S.143 of the Act. Hence R.2 of the Rules will not govern the authorisation and previous sanction of the Government is not necessary. Ext Pi is free from any legal infirmity. 11. The other contention relates to the form of Ext. P2 resolution. The contention in the original petition is that Ext P2 is not in the prescribed form. Hence R.2 of the Rules will not govern the authorisation and previous sanction of the Government is not necessary. Ext Pi is free from any legal infirmity. 11. The other contention relates to the form of Ext. P2 resolution. The contention in the original petition is that Ext P2 is not in the prescribed form. The form quoted in the original petition is not the form relating to a resolution. It does not appear that the Government has prescribed any form for a resolution. The Government has prescribed only the form for "notice of intention to make the motion" referred to in sub-sec. (2) of S.54 of the Act. There is no averment in the original petition that the notice of intention to make the motion delivered by some of the members of the Panchayat to the Deputy Director is not in the form prescribed. The allegation is that the resolution is not in the form. Resolution is not required to be in any form. I therefore reject this contention also. In the result, the original petition is dismissed with costs of respondents, advocate's fee one set. Issue carbon copies to parties on usual terms. Dismissed.