DESAI, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions common questions arise for consideration. Therefore, they were heard together and this order will dispose of all the petitions. ( 2 ) W. P. . NO. 4686/87 relates to Gedare mandal Panchayat. W. P. . No. 4687/87 relates to Alakapura Mandal Panchayat. W. P. . No. 5689/87 relates to Julupalya Mandal panchayat. W. P. . No. 5900/87 relates to kundalgurki Mandal Panchayat. W. P. . No. 5685/87 relates to Namagondalu mandal Panchayat. W. P. . No. 5844/87 relates to Somenahalli Mandal Panchayat. W. P. . No. 5854/87 relates to Battalahalli mandal Panchayat. W. P. . No. 4838/87 relates to Anoor Mandal Panchayat. All these writ petitions relate to Mandal Panchayats in kolar District. The Prescribed Officers of all the Mandal Panchayats had issued notices of the first meetings for election of Pradhan and upa-Pradhan of the said Mandal Panchayats fixing certain date. The first meetings of the said Mandal Panchayats were not held as per the notices and the meetings were postponed. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the said meetings were postponed by the Prescribed officers yielding to the external pressures of the persons in power as they wanted to have the nominations made in accordance with section 5 (3) of the Karnataka Zilla parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats act, 1983 (for short the 'act') and to increase their voting strength. The petitioners have contended that if the prescribed Officers initiate the election processes afresh ignoring the earlier notices and providing voting rights to a subsequently nominated members also, serious injury would be caused to them which cannot be adequately compensated. Hence, they have filed these writ petitions for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the election processes initiated as per the earlier notices from the stage it was interrupted duly confining the voting lights only to those who are voters when the earlier notices were issued. ( 4 ) THE first question that arises for determination in these petitions is, whether the. Prescribed Officer had the power to postpone the first meeting of the Mandal panchayats. Mr. A. K. Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that when once the electibn process had started the prescribed Officer had no authority to adjourn the meeting. ( 4 ) THE first question that arises for determination in these petitions is, whether the. Prescribed Officer had the power to postpone the first meeting of the Mandal panchayats. Mr. A. K. Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that when once the electibn process had started the prescribed Officer had no authority to adjourn the meeting. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned Advocates for the respondents, urged that the Prescribed officer had the right to postpone the meeting when he had the right to issue notice of the first meeting in view of Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899. ( 5 ) IN MOHD. YUNUS SALEEM v shivakumar Shastri and others ( AIR 1974 SC 1218 ) it was held that Section 21 of the karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 applies to the interpretation of the provisions of the representation of people Act. According to section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses act, where, by any enactment, a power to (issue) Notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to like sanction and conditions (if any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind and (notifications) orders, rules or bye-laws so (issued ). In this case, admittedly, the prescribed officer had the power to issue notice calling for the first meeting of the mandal Panchayats. Therefore, it must be held that he had the power to adjourn the said meeting also by altering the date. ( 6 ) THE next question that arises for determination in these petitions is whether the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, requiring a meeting of the Mandal Panchayat to be called within four weeks from the date of commencement of the term of office of the members of the Mandal Panchayat is directory or mandatory. No doubt, in the said section the word "shall'' has been used. No doubt, in the said section the word "shall'' has been used. IN STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND others v BABU RAM UPADHYA ( AIR 1961 SC 751 ) at page 765, where there is an elaborate discussion as to whether the use of the word "shall" in a statute made the provision mandatory, it was observed by subba RAO J. (as he then was) speaking for the majority of the Court thus : "for ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides, for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions, the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered". In THE REMINGTON RAND OF india LTD. , v THE WORKMEN, ( AIR 1968 SC 224 ), it was held that a provision as to the time in S. 17 (l) of the I. D. Act 1971 makes it obligatory on the Government to publish the award; that the time limit has been fixed as showing that the publication of the award ought not to be held up; and that the fixation of the period of 30 days mentioned therein does not mean that the publication beyond that time will render the award invalid. ( 7 ) WHERE a statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner in which and the time within which the duty shall be performed, injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescriptions may be a relevant factor in holding such prescriptions only directory. In considering whether a statute is imperative, DENMAN J. in R Urbanowski (1976) 1 All Er 697 (CA) P. 681) stated :"a balance may be struck between the inconvenience of sometimes rigidly adhering to, and the convenience of sometimes departing from its terms. Where a public officer is directed by a statute to perform a duty within a specified time the cases establish that provisions as to time are only directory. . . . Where a public officer is directed by a statute to perform a duty within a specified time the cases establish that provisions as to time are only directory. . . . "3therefore, it has to be held that the time limit prescribed in Section 43 of the Act for holding the first meeting of the Mandal panchayats is only directory and not mandatory, especially as there is no provisions in the Act stating that the meeting held beyond thai period would be illegal and void. ( 8 ) THIS brings me to the next point as to whether the election is to be held subsequently restricting the voting rights to those who were members on the date of the earlier notice as contended by Mr. Subbaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioners. It cannot be disputed that the election of pradhan and Upa-Pradhan is to be held at the first meeting of the Mandal Panchayats and that it is a proceeding of the Mandal panchayats. For the meetings of the Mandal panchayats the provision in Section 51 of the act apply. According to Rule 4 (1) of the karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Election of pradhana and Upa-Pradhana) Rules, 1987, the prescribed officer shall send to every member notice of the date for holding the. first meeting of the Mandal Panchayat. According to Section 5 (9) of the Act, elected and nominated members both will be members of the Mandal Panchayat. So, all those who are members as on the date so fixed for the first meeting will have the right to vote and the voting right cannot be confined to persons who were members as on the earlier date fixed for the first meeting. Moreover, the nominated members have not been made parties to these petitions and unless they are disqualified and it is held that their nomination is illegal, they cannot be prohibited from exercising their vote. Hence, I see no force in the said contention of Mr. Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 9 ) IN the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed and the Rule is discharged. The respondent-Prescribed Officer is directed to proceed with the election of Pradhan and upa-Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat concerned from the stage it was interrupted and allowing all persons who are members on the date to be fixed for the first meeting to cast their votes. No costs. The respondent-Prescribed Officer is directed to proceed with the election of Pradhan and upa-Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat concerned from the stage it was interrupted and allowing all persons who are members on the date to be fixed for the first meeting to cast their votes. No costs. Writ Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .