ORDER D. V. Shylendra Kumar J. - Writ petitioner, a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"), who has preferred a second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of section 22 of the Act, has approached this court praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the Tribunal to entertain the appeal of the petitioner before it, independent of the period of limitation prescribed under section 22(2) of the Act. Submission of Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner, in fact, has filed an application for condoning the delay for preferring the appeal beyond the time stipulated under the statute; that the petitioner has every justification and is in a position to demonstrate the reason for such delay to be bona fide and inevitable, but the Tribunal being not permitted to condone any delay beyond the period of 180 days after the expiry of initial period of 60 days, the Tribunal will be inclined to dismiss the appeal on this ground itself, unless the Tribunal is directed by issue of a writ of mandamus by this court to entertain the appeal on its merits and pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel also submits that under similar circumstances, similar petition had been allowed by this court by condoning the delay and issuing directions to the Tribunal to entertain the appeal subject to certain deposits being made, etc., and in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 28247 of 2002, dated August 14, 2002, prays for issue of similar directions in the present case also. A writ of mandamus lies to direct a public authority to perform a public duty in accordance with the statutory provision if there is failure on the part of such authority to perform the legal or statutory duty. Mandamus is for compelling a public authority to perform in accordance with the statute. No mandamus lies to compel any public authority or the Tribunal either to act contrary to a statutory provision or to overlook a statutory provision in performing its functions. Prayer for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus in respect of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner and pending before the Tribunal and for a direction in this regard is totally misconceived. Mandamus does not lie. Prayer for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus in respect of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner and pending before the Tribunal and for a direction in this regard is totally misconceived. Mandamus does not lie. Prayer for mandamus cannot be granted by any stretch of imagination. So far as the reliance placed on the order passed by this court in W.P. No. 28247 of 2002, dated August 14, 2002 is concerned, while no legal position has been examined in this case, it appears that certain amounts were required to be deposited and in that context, on the petitioner therein undertaking to deposit certain amount within stipulated time that the appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal without raising any objection with regard to the period of limitation, etc. The order at any rate does not lay down any law. A legal proposition which is determined or laid down in the context of issues involved in the case and as determined by the court, alone can be called as the ratio of the decision in which event it is a precedent. The order appears more by way of consent rather than by way of any contest or examination of the question of law involved. While the order brought to the notice of this court cannot be regarded as an authority laying down any proposition of law, I do not find any justification to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case also the Tribunal may be directed to consider the appeal on merits by imposing costs, ignoring the prescription of limitation by the very statute which provides for the appellate remedy. The question is not one of levying any cost, but the question is whether this court can issue a writ in the nature of mandamus as sought for. As indicated earlier, mandamus sought for cannot be issued in law and therefore the writ petition is dismissed.