Judgment :- Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. All or some among respondents 3 to 11, the members of a District Panchayat, intended to move a motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner, the Vice President of that Panchayat. They delivered a written notice to the first respondent Deputy Collector, of their intention to move the motion, on the assumption that he is the officer authorised in that behalf by the State Election Commission. Admittedly, it was the second respondent District Collector who was the authorised person. Though the first respondent issued notices convening meeting for the consideration of the motion in terms of Sub-section 3 of Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter, the "Act" for short, he recalled them and cancelled the meeting convened by him, on being appraised that he had no authority. 2. After the aforesaid episode, the Commission authorised the first respondent Deputy Collector, for the purpose of receiving the notice of the intention to move a no-confidence motion and also for such other purposes attendant to that authority. Yet another notice of the intention to move a no-confidence motion was delivered thereafter to the first respondent. The petitioner challenges this subsequent exercise on the premise that the first motion having been made and being alive, a second motion is hit by Sub-section 13 of Section 157 of the Act. This is the fundamental plea in this writ petition. 3. Adverting to the different provisions in Section 157 of the Act, it can be seen that a motion expressing want of confidence may be moved in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Section. A written notice of the intention to move the motion, signed by such number of members as are prescribed in Sub-section 2, shall be presented in the prescribed form with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved. That notice has to be delivered to the person authorised by the State Election Commission in that behalf. That officer is duty bound by Sub-sections 3 and 4 to convene a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion and to issue notice. That meeting is to be presided by the authorised officer. That notice has to be delivered to the person authorised by the State Election Commission in that behalf. That officer is duty bound by Sub-sections 3 and 4 to convene a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion and to issue notice. That meeting is to be presided by the authorised officer. Sub-section 7 enjoins that the person presiding over that meeting shall read the motion and declare it to be open for debate, which debate is regulated by the time limit fixed in Sub-section 9. Subsection 13 provides that if the motion is not carried by such majority as is prescribed in Sub- section 2 or if the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence shall be received until the expiry of six months from the date of the meeting. The logic in that quorum rule is that those who wanted to have the motion carried ought to have been present to carry it. Otherwise, the inescapable inference is that there were not sufficient members interested in carrying that motion expressing want of confidence. These provisions categorically show that the situs of the jurisdictional fact generating the prohibition contained in Sub-section 13 is the meeting. If the meeting falls for want of quorum, the prohibition immediately operates. If the meeting is held with the prescribed quorum, the prohibition operates when the motion is not carried by the required majority. What the authorised officer carries with him, till the stage at which he reads out the motion in terms of Sub-section 7 in the meeting, is only a copy of the motion in terms of the prescription in Sub-section 2. That copy of the motion becomes alive for generating the incidentals that could arise there from, only on its presentation by the presiding officer in the meeting, by reading it out and declaring it open for debate. 4. With the aforesaid in mind, admittedly, a copy of the no-confidence motion that was initially given to the first respondent was at a point of time when he was not a person authorised by the Commission to receive any notice regarding the intention to move any motion expressing want of confidence. The authority under Sub-section 2 of Section 157 is conditional. That is merely a statutory authority. It is a conferment by the Commission. The authority under Sub-section 2 of Section 157 is conditional. That is merely a statutory authority. It is a conferment by the Commission. Therefore, without conferment of such authority, the first respondent did not have the authority to receive the notice, delivered to him in the first instance. Hence, the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner as was notified to the first respondent as per the notice signed and delivered to him with a copy of the motion proposed to be moved, dated 20.7.2009, became a worthless document in the hands of the first respondent and ought to be taken as one of no consequence and void on grounds of infraction of the rule as to authorisation by the Commission prescribed by Sub-section 2 of Section 157. 5. The necessary consequence of the aforesaid discussion is that the so called notice dated 20.7.2009 is a dead document and cannot be treated as a motion which would trigger the prohibition contained in Sub-section 13 of Section 157. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.