These duties will be in connection with election. To illustrate section 197 of the Criminal Procedure code speaks of official duty. 150 This Court in Matajog v. H.C. Bhari (1955) 2 SCR 925 = AIR 1956 SC 44) interpreted the words official duty’’ to have reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of duty. The act must bear such relation to the duty that the person could lay a reasonable claim, but not a pretended fanctual claim that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. Where a power is conferred or a duty imposed by statue or otherwise and there is nothing said expressly inhibiting the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty by any limitations or restrictions, it is reasonable to hold that it carries with it the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are reasonably necessary for such execution, because it is a rate that when the law commands a thing to be done, it authorises the performance of whatever may be necessary for execute its command. 151. There is no vice of delegation in the Statute ‘‘Delegation is not the complete handing over or transference of a a power from one person or body of persons to another. Delegation may be defined as the entrusting by a person or body of persons of the exercise of a power residing in that person or body of persons to another person or body of persons with complete power of revocation or amendment remaining in the grantor or delegator. It is important to grasp the implications of this for much confusion of thought has unfortunately resulted from assuming that delegation involves or may involve the complete abdication or abrogation of a power. This is precluded by the definition. Delegation often involves the granting of discretionary authority to another but such authority is purely derivative. The ultimate power always remains in the delegator and is never renounced’’. (See Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. The Asst. Commr. of Sales Tax (1974) 4 SCC 98 at p. 116 = (AIR 1974 SC 1660 at p. 1673). 152. The Constitution 29th Amendment Act was considered by this Court in Kesavananda Bharati’s case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) (supra). The 29th Amendment Act inserted in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution Entries 65 and 66 being the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969 and the Kerala Land Reforms act, 1971. This Court unanimously upheld the validity of the 29th Amendment Act. The unanimous view of this Court in Kesavananda Bharati’s case (supra) is that Article 31-B is not open to challenge. Six Judges held that the 29th Amendment Act would be ineffective to protect the impugned Act if they took away the fundamental rights. Six judges took the view that the 29th Amendment Act is valid and further that Article 31-B has been held by this Court to be independent of Article 31-A and that Article 31B protects Scheduled Acts and Regulations and none of the Scheduled Acts and Regulations is deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground of contravention of any fundamental rights. Article 31-B gives a mandate and complete protection from the challenge of fundamental rights to the Scheduled Acts and Regulations. The view of seven Judges in Kesavanada Bharati’s case is that Article 31-B is a constitutional device to place the specified statute in the Schedule beyond any attack that these