JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is filed by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bakhatpura, Panchayat Samiti Gaddi, against whom 'No Confidence Motion' was taken up at the instance of eight members of the Panchayat out of twelve. A notice was given of the intention and such notice was served on the members. 2. One of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the notice of 15 clear days should have been given for holding the meeting. The time leg between the notice and the holding of the motion was less. Afer having read the amended Section 37(3)(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), the learned counsel for the petitioner gave up this point. 3. It was not argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the meeting was presided over by the Tehsildar, who was not the person authorised and was not the competent authority. To support his argument, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Smt. Manjula v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., RLW 1997 (3) Raj. 2049 . In this case, the petition was allowed holding that the person who initiated the proceedings, was only holding the charge of the head of the Zila Parishad and thus, the proceedings were quashed. He was only an official of the Zila Parishad and not the Chief Executive Officer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, it is Tehsildar who has conducted the proceedings. He was not the authorised person. The argument is not well founded. In the instant case, proceedings were initiated by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad and not the person, who was temporarily holding the charge of Chief Executive Officer. Therefore, the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not cover the case of the petitioner. 5. The Chief Executive Officer authorised the Tehsildar because it was not possible for him to preside over the meeting for administrative reasons because there was acute famine-He was required to attend to famine duties. Section 37(4) of the Act provides for such authorisation. In the meeting, 8 members have voted against the petitioner, which was the requisite majority. This Court feels that Section 37(4) of the Act authorises the Chief Executive Officer to delegate powers to preside the meeting. Section 37(4) of the Act provides for such authorisation. In the meeting, 8 members have voted against the petitioner, which was the requisite majority. This Court feels that Section 37(4) of the Act authorises the Chief Executive Officer to delegate powers to preside the meeting. Thus, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no consequence and help to him. The meeting was presided over by a right person and No Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner. 6. There is no force in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******