CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be the indian National Trust for Art and cultural Heritage, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act XX! of 1360), The Act is a central Act. The prayer in the Writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to frame proper rules to carry out the provisions of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 as well as a writ of mandamus to the respondents viz. , the State of Karnataka and the Commissioner of Police totaka immediate steps to arrange for removal of all unauthorised advertisements from places open to public view. ( 2 ) INSOFAR as the first of the prayers is concerned as enumeratedabove, if the provisions of the Act can be implemented even in the absence of framing the rules, there is no need for directing the State to frame the Rules, the Act was passed by the Karnataka legislature and received the assent of the President on 20th August, 1982 by provisions made in clause (1) of subsection (2) it shall be deemed to have come into force in the Cities of bangalore, Mysore, Hubli, Dharwag, mangalore and Belgaum constituted under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or under any other law on the 5th day of March, 1981. In the definition clause in Section 2, "advertisement" has been defined to mean any printed, cyclostyled, typed or written, notice, document, paper or any other thing containing any letter, word picture, sign or visible representation. "place open to public view" includes any private place or building, monument, statue, post, wall, fence, free or contrivance visible to a person being in, or passing along any public place. Similarly, "public place" also is defined to mean any place including a road, street or way, whether a thoroughfare or not and a landing place to which the public are granted access or have a right to resort or over which they have a right to pass. 2. The important section is section 3 which provides for punishment for unauthorised disfigurement by advertisements and the provision reads as follows :-"penalty for unauthorised disfigurement by advertisements. 2. The important section is section 3 which provides for punishment for unauthorised disfigurement by advertisements and the provision reads as follows :-"penalty for unauthorised disfigurement by advertisements. Whoever by himself or through another person affixes to, or erects, inscribes or exhibits on, any place open to public view any advertisement without the written permission of the local authority having jurisdiction over such area, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both: provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any advertisement which, (i) is exhibited within the window of any building if the advertisement relates to the trade, profession or business carried on in thatbuilding; or (ii) relates to the trade, profession or business carried on within the land or building upon or over which such advertisement is exhibited or to any sale or letting of such land or building or any effects therein or to any sale, entertainment or meeting to be held on or upon or in the same; or (iii) relates to the name of the land or building, upon or over which the advertisement is exhibited, or to name of the owner or occupier of such land or building; or (iv) relates to the business of a railway administration and is exhibited within any railway station or upon any wall or other property of a railway administration. "the scheme of the Act is such burden of proof in certain cases when a person is prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 3 that he had the permission to exhibit the advertisements, will be on him. Section 5 makes abettors also punishable. Similarly, section 6 provides for companies also being responsible for an offence under section 3. Section 8 makes the offence under Sec. 3 a cognizable offence notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In other words, an offence under Section 3 is made cognizable under the code of Criminal Procedure expressly. The provisions of the Act in question under Section 9 thereof is stated to be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of law for the time being in force. Section 10 authorises the government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act in question under Section 9 thereof is stated to be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of law for the time being in force. Section 10 authorises the government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. ( 3 ) IN the case of Patei Shivarudrappa v State of Mysore (1969 (2)Mys. LJ. 607), a Division Bench of this court had occasion to consider whether section 16 of the Karnataka Irrigation act could be given effect to and acted upon without the State Government framing the necessary Rules under the provisions of that Act. In that circumstance, the Division Bench ruled that if the provisions of the Act can be implemented without the framing of the rules which are only meant to further the objects of the Act, the provisions may be given effect to. Therefore, the first of the piayers cannot be granted issuing a direction to the State government to frame rules. Even otherwis-e, making of the rules is a legislative function of the Government and this Court, by an order, cannot r,ompel the Government to frame the rules. The choice of making laws or not making laws will entirely be in the discretion of the Executive and the legislature authorised to make subordinate legislation by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act. ( 4 ) INSOFAR as the second contention is concerned, a mandamus to thecommissioner of Police, Bangalore city may not issue on the facts stated by the petitioner. The statement made in support of the prayers in the petition does not disclose which advertisement or advertisements amount to an offence which has not been taken cognizance of by the persons who are required to take cognizance of such offences. That means the officers enumerated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from that, some vague assertions that there are posters which are offensive and amounts to disfigurement of places open to public view, is something which either this Court or even an officer who may take cognizance can act upon unless it is specifically pointed out where such advertisements have been displayed to the public view in a public place giving rise to a cause of action to prosecute a person who is responsible for such disfigurement. If this; Court cannot act upon such vague assertions, it would not be proper for this Court to expect the second respon dent to act on mere assertions of the petitioner even if this Court were in clined to issue notice of the petition. 4. Even otherwise, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of s. L. Syndicate Limited v Union of india ( AIR 1975 SC 460 Para 24), a mandamus subject to the very rare exceptions will issue only when a demand has been made upon the authority to perform a statutory duty and that authority having refused to perform, the person making demand feels aggrieved, then only he may approach the court for relief. Prudence and rule of convenience requires that such demand must be in writing so that the Court which is called upon to issue mandamus is certain that a demand was made and other evidence is not required to be produced before the Court in that behalf. ( 5 ) IN this Petition, no such averment is made that the petitioner societyhad made a demand on the second respondent to enforce the provisions of the Act specifying the places in which the requirements have taken place. An attempt was made by the learned Counsel to rely upon the decisions of other high Courts anterior to the decision of the Supreme Court to which I have made a reference. But they are decisions of the High Court sand this Court discouraged the Counsel to cite such authority as against the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, Therefore, no reference has been made to those decisions. In the circumstances stated above, this Petition is Ill-conceived and is liable to be rejected. It is so rejected. Order accordingly. Writ petition rejected. --- *** --- .